Mr v. Ravi Kiran Rao, Senior Counsel representing

... Petitioner/Appel lanURespondenUDefendant AND '1 . Gadigoppula Bapu, S/o Lingaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 1-40, Thimmapoor Village, Chandurthi Mandal, Raianna Sircilla District. ... RespondenURespondenUPetitioner/Plaintiff

2. The Tahsildar, Chandurthi Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla Diskict. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District. 4. The Joint Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District. 5. The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla. ...Respondents/Defendants 2 to 5 (Though the Respondents 2 to 5 were arrayed as Defendants 2 to 5 in the suit. But they were not shown in the lA as Respondents. As such they were made as Respondents 2 to 5. The Respondents 2 to 5 are not parties to this CRP) Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Senior Counsel representing Mr. V. Rohith Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Bharadwaj Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CML REVISION PETITION No.2O87 of 2O2L ORDER: I-lea;rl \1r. V. Ravi Kirar Rao, learnecl S,enior Counsel representing Mr. V. Rohith, learned counsel for the petitioners arrd Sri M. Bharadwaj Reddy, learned counsc br respondent No. 1. Peruscd the record.

2. This (livi1 Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 ol Constitution of India, by the petitioner aggrie\,c I b-y the order and decree. dated 07.01.2020 passed in C.lll A.No.l of 2019 on the file ol the IX Additional District and Srr:ssions Judge, Sircilla

3. Brief lacts of the case are that the pr:ritioner is the appellant in C.M.A No.O1 of 2019. Respondent No. L/plaintiff filed O.S.No.73 of 2018 against the petitiorur and others seeking for declaration of title and perpetu:r injunction ln respect of the agricultura-l land admeasuring ,\r;.0.20 guntas in S',,.No.51'l/A situated at Thimmapur Villase Chandurthv Mandal, Ra..;anna Sircilla District (hereinafter referred to as "the sr-rbject property"). Along rvith the said stul, respondent 2 ---.1 \ -- ) No.l/plaintiff also filed I'A No'187 of 2018 seeking for ad interim temporary injunction' The learned Junior Civil by granting Judge, Vemulawada allowed the said I.A. temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner herein, his agents, workmen, henchmen and supporters from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property' '

4. On perusal of the entire material placed on record rvould show that the order passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sircilla in C'M'A'

5. As seen from the record' the injunction order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge would show that the learned Junior Civil Judge has carne to conclusion that the documents filed by the respondent No l/plaintiff prima facie shows that respondent No l-plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule Iand and balance of convenience is in his favour and having held that he is cultivating the suit land as on the date of hling of the suit and a-lso considering the hardship which he would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not - 3 granted, held that he is entitled for tempc r erv injunction ) pending the suit. Being aggrieved by the, ;ame, revision petrtioner pre[erred the appea] before tl-rt: learnecl IX Additional Drst:i:t and Sessions Judge, Sirci[[rL

6. Having considered the entire material pla:ed on record, including both oral and documentarSr evidcnce, and upon finding tha t a prima facie case exists and t 1e balance of convenienc,l lics in favour of respond€nt No 1 / plaintiff, the learned Adr tional District Judge held that 1t-e documentary evidence relied upon by respondent No.1/p)rrintiff suppcrts tl-re claim of possession. Accordingly, the ordr-r' of the learneC tria-l Judge grzrnting tempora-ry injunction has been confirmed. Being aggrieved by the same, the l)resent revision is liled before this Court. 7 . Having perused the entire materia-l on -e cord and the orders passed b1' the learned trial Judge arlcl the appellate Judge, the en tire material clearly shows that .-raving taking inlo considr:ration of the Exs.Pl to 22 rvhictr are relied bv respondent No. l /ptaintiff and further the re r:,l d shoq's that nothing has been placed by the revision petitror-rer/ defendant 4 ,1 ' No.1 before the trial Court to substantiate his contents' this Court is of the opinion that learned Junior Civil Judge Vemulawada arrd IX Additional District a-nd Sessions Judge' Sircilla have rightly came to the conclusion that lespondent No. 1/plaintiff has made out prima facie case and that there is balance of convenience in his favour and which do not require any interference' as it is based upon the materia-l placed before the learned Junior Civil Judge' Hence' for the said reasons,Iholdthatthereisnothingonrecordtointerfere with the said findings by way of the revision before this Court ancl accordingly the revision fails and the same is dismissed' It is pertinent to mention here that the said suit was B. translerred from the learned Junior Civil Judge to the Court ol the Senior Civil Judge, Vemulawada and it is re-numbered as O.S.No.1 22 of 2024' As it is seen that the revision petitioner/ defendant No' 1 is aged about 84 years being the SeniorCitizen,theSeniorCivilJudge'Vemulawadais directedtoseethatthesuitisdisposedofasexpeditiouslyas possible, on day to day basis without giving any unnecessarl/ and long adjournments ald the counsels before the trial Court are directed to cooperate with the dry9p| of the case' 5 considerinq the age of delendant No. l. It is iiso made clear I that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit ,,vithout getting influence bv the orders of this Court indep:ndentl_v on the entire orai an.l ri,,:r.rmentarjz evidence placed

9. Accoldingll', this Civil Revision Petitior-r is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Misct'llaneous petitions pending, if anr,, shall stancl d ismissed SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR k //TRUE COPY// ! SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Additional District & Sessions Judge at Sircilla 2. The Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada. 3. One CC to lr4r. V. Rohith, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to Sri tvl. Bharadwal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kam/PS L W HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 ) / ORDER CRP.No.2087 o12021 I o ,J .,.'. .'.t iHE ;-. ' t 2 li 0[i 7925 I t1 DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 1 1-).. \D