1. While admitting the civil revision petition this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.2041 of 2008 directed both the parties to maintain status quo as on the said date till further orders. Respondent in the civil revision petition filed C.R.P.M.P.No.2914 of 2008 to vacate the interim order.

2. Though the matter is coming up at interlocutory stage, both the senior counsel Sri Prakash Reddy and Sri Malla Reddy representing the parties made a request for final disposal of the civil revision petition itself. Hence, the civil revision petition was finally heard and being disposed of by this Court.

3. Sri Prakash Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that here is a case where the court of first instance, in the light of Exs.A-1 to A-3, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and granted interim relief. The learned senior counsel also would maintain that since the respondent-defendant filed only xerox copies inadmissible in evidence, the same were not marked and inasmuch as no acceptable documentary evidence as such had been placed by the respondent before the court of first instance, the said court recorded appropriate reasons and granted the relief. The learned senior counsel also had taken this court through the findings recorded by the appellate court and would maintain that the appellate court without appreciating the respective stands taken by the parties in proper perspective reversed the same by allowing the appeal specifying certain reliefs. While further elaborating his submissions the learned senior counsel would maintain that this is a case where the revision petitioner-plaintiff has been claiming under a prior sale deed of a specified extent and the respondent-defendant has been claiming a larger extent, inclusive of this extent, by virtue of a subsequent sale deed. The learned senior counsel also would point out that the origin of sale deed is not in serious dispute. Further, the senior counsel pointed out that the court of first instance though referred to Exs.A-1 and A-2, these documents were not shown by way of appendix of evidence and it may be that these exhibits had been marked by the court of first instance. The learned senior counsel also would maintain that here is a case where there is some dispute relating to the identity and the location of the property and, hence, in fitness of things it would be appropriate to appoint a commissioner for the purpose of local investigation, so that the very question in controversy can be conveniently resolved in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties.

4. On the contrary, Sri Malla Reddy learned senior counsel representing respondent would maintain that the very pleading had been drafted in a reckless and negligent way and several serious allegations had been made as against the defendant. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that though the plot had been referred to, there was no approval at all. The very fact that one of the parties made a report to police even in 2000 specifying encroachment would go to show that this litigation is nothing but blackmailing practice. If at all, the plaintiff is having any remedy, it may be as against the vendors and not against this respondent. The learned senior counsel also referred to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and would maintain that there is no cause of action at all. The learned senior counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. The learned senior counsel also pointed out to several documents which had been placed before this Court and would maintain that the observation made by the court of first instance that no documents had been filed cannot be sustained and this reasoning had been adopted only for the reason that xerox copies had been produced. The learned senior counsel pointed out to the permissions obtained and several of the