Heard Sri P. Keshava Rao, Counsel for petitioner and Sri Hari Prasad, Counsel representing the respondent.

2. The unsuccessful respondent/defendant in both the Courts below had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein, plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.692/2005 filed an application I.A.No.1453/2005 under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as " Code", praying for temporary injunction. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal on appreciation of Exs. P-1 to P-10 and Exs. R-1 to R-14 came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the plaintiff is claiming the property in S.No.703 and the present Revision petitioner/defendant is claiming in S.No.704, in the light of the mutation, the other revenue records and the pahanies, the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and hence he is entitled for the relief of temporary injunction. The Court of first instance placed reliance on State of A.P. v. Pramila Modi and others1, N. S. Srinivas and others v. Madduri Mallareddy and others1, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram others3 etc.

3. The unsuccessful defendant/r