ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

Defendants in the suit filed the above revision assailing the order, dated 16.06.2025, in C.M.A.No.01 of 2025 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, preferred against the order dated 25.09.2023 in I.A.No.39 of 2023 in O.S.No.58 of 2023, on the file of learned I Additional Civil (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

2. The parties to the revision are referred to as per their status in the suit O.S.No.58 of 2023.

3. The plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.58 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.39 of 2023 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short „C.P.C.'), seeking an ad-interim injunction.

4. In the affidavit, filed in support I.A.No.39 of 2023, it was pleaded that the plaintiff's father had an ancestral property in the village and plaintiff possesses land of an extent of Ac.00-52 cents, Ac.00-71 cents and Ac.00-30 cents, in survey Nos.43-1-A-2, 4-3-A and 4-3-A, respectively (totalling Ac.1-53 cents). The plaint/petition schedule property consists of two items i.e. item No.1 is land of an extent of Ac.00- 52 cents in survey No.43-1-A-2; and item No.2 is land of an extent of Ac.00-71 cents and Ac.00-30 cents in survey Nos 4-3-A and 4-3-B, respectively. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land without any obstruction. The Tahsildar, Ranastalam Mandal, updated the Record of Rights (ROR) in respect of land of an extent of Ac.00-52 cents and Ac.00-30 cents, referred supra and issued the pattadar passbook. The Government released rythu barosa, and the plaintiff obtained loan from APGV bank, for which the plaintiff has been paying instalments. The plaintiff approached the Tahsildar and requested him to update his name with respect to Ac.00-71 cents of land in survey No.4-3-A. Defendants 1 to 4 are creating obstructions, and they, being influenced persons, are forcibly trying to trespass into the land and evict the plaintiff. Hence, filed the above suit and interlocutory application.

5. The Trial Court initially granted an ad-interim injunction on 04.02.2023 in I.A.No.39 of 2023.

6. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement in the suit and a counter in the interlocutory application. It was contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the son of the brother of defendant No.1. The plaintiff's father, defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 are brothers. They separated the properties long ago and have been enjoying respective properties. The defendants denied the plaintiff's possession of Ac.00-52 cents in survey No.43-1-A-2. It was specifically pleaded that Ac.1-90 cents in survey No.43/1P belong to defendant No.1, Boya Kistamma. The Government issued a pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of defendant No.1, and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by paying cists from 1979 onwards. The government also issued the e- pattadar passbook on 29.10.2015. The plaintiff influenced the village officials and got his name mutated in respect of part of the land in Ac.1- 90 cents in survey No.43-1. The defendants, after coming to know about the same, approached MRO, Ranasthalam, but no action has been taken. The defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1- 90 cents. They specifically pleaded that they have nothing to do with item No.2 of the plaint/petition schedule property.

7. During the enquiry, the plaintiff marked Exs.P1 to P5 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

8. The Trial Court, by order, dated 25.09.2023, disposed of the said interlocutory application, modifying the ad-interim injunction granted on 04.02.2023 as status quo and directed the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit.

9. Assailing the order, dated 25.09.2023, the plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2025 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

10. In said C.M.A., the d