( 1 ) THE instant revision petition is directed against the order, dated 17-6-2005, passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, in I. A. No. 637 of 2005 and i. A. No. 774 of 2005 in O. S. No. 709 of 2005.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful second respondent in I. A. No. 637 of 2005, the petitioner in i. A. No. 774 of 2005, is the revision petitioner.

( 3 ) THE first respondent herein laid the suit in O. S. No. 709 of 2005 for possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act ). Her case as averred, inter alia, in the plaint seems to be that one Sumanth Kale (R2) was the owner and possessor of the land as described in schedule appended to the plaint. He sold the said land in favour of his wife and one Smt. Vijaya Bowgikar jointly under registered sale deed, dated 29-6-1985. The vendees in turn sold the property in her favour under registered sale deed dated 20-6-2001 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revision petitioner, who is a builder, and respondents 3 to 5, 7 and 8, who are the neighbouring owners of the schedule property, approached her with a proposal of developing the petition schedule property for which she agreed and signed certain documents enabling the revision petitioner and others to get no objection from the District collector and relevant permissions and approval from the M. C. H. However, she received a caveat petition filed by the revision petitioner on 26-11 -2004, wherein he claimed that she was a stranger to him and to the suit properties and had been interfering with the construction being made by him without having any right or possession. On receiving the caveat petition, she issued a legal notice, dated 16-1-2005, to all the respondents. The respondent No. 6, in reply, stated, inter alia, that she had not purchased the plaint schedule property and she had only purchased a flat from R2, the revision petitioner. Taking advantage of the Pongal vacation, the revision petitioner illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property on 31-12-2004 andstarted making construction and hence the suit under section 6 of the Act.

( 4 ) IN the concomitant petition filed in i. A. No. 637 of 2005, she sought for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from making illegal constructions. Respondents 1, 3, 4 and 8 remained ex parte. Respondents 5 to 7 did not file any counter. The second respondent, revision petitioner, alone resisted that application. Initially, the Court granted status guoorder in I. A. No. 637 of 2005. The revision petitioner, therefore, filed I. A. No. 774of 2005 seeking to vacate the said order. During the course of enquiry in both the petitions, on the side of the plaintiff, petitioner, Exs. P-1 to p-13 were got marked and on the side of the contesting respondents Exs. R-1 to R-15 were got marked. After having heard either side and considered documents filed, under the impugned order, the Court below allowed i. A. No. 637 of 2005 and restrained the revision petitioner from making illegal constructions of flats by means of temporary injunction, while dismissing I. A. No. 774 of 2005. The revision petitioner is, therefore, assailing the said order.

( 5 ) THE main suit, O. S. No. 709 of 2005, was admittedly filed under Section 6 of the act seeking possession on the premise that during the Pongal vacation on 31-12-2004 the revision petitioner illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property and prior thereto the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property having purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed, dated 20-6-2001, from her vendors, who in turn purchased the said property from the original owner, the second respondent herein, by means of registered sale deed dated 29-6-1985. The first respondent- plaintiff, therefore, claims to have been in possession of the plaint schedule mentioned properties since 20-6-2001 and dispossession specifically on 31 -12-2004. In the suit of this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document