IMPORTANT POINT
Court has to exercise its discretion in applying rule of procedure.

A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.—The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.102 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District. She filed the said suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.0.59 cents of land situated in Survey No.348/6 of Rajubangarupalem Village, Hamlet of Chinaganjam Mandal in Prakasam District. A written statement was filed by the defendants. The petitioner filed I.A.No.607 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction. When the said application was pending, she also filed I.A.No.1477 of 2016 seeking a direction to Tahsildar, Chinaganjam, to send for D.K Register for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 relating to the plaint schedule land. A counter affidavit was filed and when the said application was dismissed by order dated 02.09.2016, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the plaint is that the plaint schedule property was given to her as pasupu kunkuma at the time of her marriage, which took place about 35 years back and since then she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. The name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records and she was given pattadar pass books and title deeds. Her name is being recorded as enjoyer of the plaint schedule property in the revenue records. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is his son in law. Both of them developed an evil idea to grab the plaint schedule property as the plaintiff has no male help since her husband died and she is working as office subordinate in Veterinary Hospital of Chinaganjam. The defendants were proclaiming in the village that they will not permit her to cultivate the plaint schedule land as it belonged to the father of the first defendant. The defendants, with the support of some anti-social elements, are trying to trespass into the plaint schedule land.

3. A written statement was filed by the first defendant denying the plaint allegations. He stated that he is the absolute owner of the said property since a DK patta was granted in his favour in the year 2001 recognizing his long possession and enjoyment. A copy of the same was filed along with the written statement. Previously the father of the first defendant - Poli Reddy, had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property during his lifetime and he died 15 years back. The first defendant has been raising leafy vegetables and vegetables in the plaint schedule property along with some Eucalyptus trees. The Mandal Revenue Officer granted pattadar pass books and title deeds in his favour. The plaintiff has got political influence and continuously threatening the first defendant. The title deeds and pattadar pass books in favour of the plaintiff were invented documents and pressed into service for the purpose of the present suit. The plaintiff, under the guise of the temporary injunction orders, raided on the property of the first defendant on 11.04.2016 at 11.00 pm and committed theft of electricity meter, wire and caused loss to the property of the first defendant. The first defendant gave a complaint to the Chinaganjam Police Station on 12.04.2016 and the same is under enquiry.

4. When the application for direction to the Tahsildar, Chinaganjam, was filed, as aforesaid, the trial Court dismissed the application by holding as follows:—

“…Both parties have marked their respective documents Exs.P1 to P6 and Exs.R1 to R5. The alleged D.K.Patta produced by respondent No.1 also got marked. The petitioner disputed about the said D.K.Patta stands in the name of respondent No.1. The attempt of petitioner to get D.K.Register to establish that no such D.K.Patta was granted to respondent No.1. Now I.A.607/2016 filed for bare temporary injunction, hence, the petitioner has to establish her prima facie possession over