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/respondent in the aforesaid application, aggrieved by the order dated 1-8-2005 made by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal referred to supra had carried the matter by way of C.MA No.49/2005 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Warangal and the appellate Court at para-8 having framed the Points for consideration discussed the facts in nutshell at paras, 9,10,11 and 12 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the order of the Court of first instance need not be interfered with and accordingly dismissed the Appeal, making no order as to costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. Sri Keshava Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner/unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below would maintain that when a specific stand was taken by the petitioner that no such land in fact is in existence in S.No.703 and by giving wrong boundaries under the guise of this order the respondent/plaintiff is trying to occupy his property in S.No.704, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the prima facie case in relation thereto and the observation made that it is for the petitioner/defendant to establish to same is an erroneous approach. The learned Counsel also further explained the actual extent of land they have in S.No.703 and would maintain that even on mathematical calculations if the lands are to be calculated one may have to arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the extent of land as claimed by the plaintiff/respondent is not available on the land. The learned Counsel also would point out that the appellate Court committed yet another error in not taking into consideration the land of Gattaiah at all while calculating the extents of land and this had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Counsel also would point out that the son of the vendor of the plaintiff/respondent, E. Pravin Chander Reddy, is said to have given a third party affidavit before the Court of first instance to the effect that the plaint schedule land was not sold to the plaintiff/respondent and in the said affidavit the age of the deponent was shown as 49 years but however he was shown as one of the witnesses in the document dated 15-3-1970 and on the said date the deponent would have been only 13 years. This itself would falsify the document in question. The learned Counsel also made an attempt to produce the said document at the Revisional stage which had not been exhibited and made certain comments in relation thereto.

5. Per contra, Sri Hari Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff would contend that in the light of the reasons recorded in detail by both the Courts below, this is not a fit case to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also woul