S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this revision, is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 27 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munisff, Visakhapatnam. He laid the suit for a permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, he filed I. A. No. 24 of 1993 under Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. , praying the court to grant interim injunction in his favour. On 22-6-1993, the trial court having found that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property granted interim injunctio. Dissatisfied with the said order, the respondents carried the matter in appeal before the learned HI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in C. M. A. No. 45 of 1993. The learned District Judge held that the possession of the petitioner was that of a licensee and therefore, he could not seek injunction against the real owner. In that view of the matter, the learned District Judge set aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the appeal of the respondents by his judgment dated 27-1-1994. It is the correctness of that order which is assailed in the present revision.

( 2 ) SHRI Murali Mukunda Rao, the learned counsel for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document