ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order of the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.3 of 2022 dated 01.11.2022. The first appellate Court reversed the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.108 of 2020 in O.S.No.5 of 2020 dated 25.03.2022. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff mainly contended that the first appellate Court failed to construe the letter dated 19.11.1998 filed under Ex.P1 and attested copy of format-A dated 24.04.2001 filed under Ex.P8 in proper perspective and it was not considered that the petitioner is in continuous physical possession of the suit property right from their allotment. The revision petitioner further contended that as per the Orders in W.P.No.10151 of 2001, respondents/defendants have not refunded any amount and not filed any document to substantiate the same. He contended that the trial Court failed to consider the prima-facie title and possession and dismissed the injunction application which was made absolute by the trial Court. It is a settled principle that ‘possession follows title’, but it was not considered. Respondents/defendants already executed a registered sale deed in respect of part of the land in pursuance of the first auction conducted under Ex.P1 dated 19.11.1998. It was also pointed out that though CMA was heard on 11.07.2022, it was posted for orders on 15.07.2022. After 18 adjournments Order was passed on 04.11.2022. The first appellate Court exceeded its powers and came to the conclusion that the amended survey numbers are not covered under Exs.P1 and P7 and vacated the injunction. The trial court granted status quo in the year 2020 and made it absolute on 25.03.2022, but the first appellate Court instead of protecting the rights of the petitioner, allowed the CMA without assigning proper reasons. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the said Order.

3. Perusal of the record shows that O.S.No.5 of 2020 is filed by one Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy against the Nizam Sugars Limited (NSL) represented by its authorized signatory and the Deputy Manager of Nizam Sugars Limited to declare him as absolute owner of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.324 & 704 measuring an extent of Acs.15 – 17 gts out of Acs.40 – 00 gts situated at Narsapur Farm, Achanpally Shivar of Bodhan Mandal and for injunction. As per the Order dated 10.12.2020 in I.A.No.123 of 2020, the said survey numbers are amended as Sy.Nos.689, 691, 692, 693 and 694 part instead of Sy.Nos.324 & 704.

4. Parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.

5. Plaintiff stated that he is absolute owner of the suit schedule property to an extent of Acs.15 – 17 gts out of Acs.40 – 00 gts in the above survey numbers. He stated that Nizam Sugars Limited was having 140 acres of land and they offered to sell two properties i.e., i) Acs.6 – 12 gts in Sy.No.324 and ii) Acs.7 – 15 gts in Sy.No.321 situated at Satapur Village, Rengel Mandal and also issued sale confirmation letter dated 19.11.1998. They delivered possession of both the extents, but executed registered sale deed only for Acs.7 – 15 gts in Sy.No.321 on 26.09.2001. Even in the document, it was specifically mentioned that they delivered the possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed W.P.No.10151 of 2001 before the Hon’ble High Court, and by Order dated 27.02.2008 the Hon’ble High Court directed the defendants to allot un-disputed land or to refund the amount paid by the plaintiff. In pursuance of the said Order, defendants asked the plaintiff to participate in auction for another land and stated that they will give sale letter to both extents. As the plaintiff was sick, his brother Laxminarayana Reddy participated in the auction and stood as highest bidder to purchase the land to an extent of Ac.0 – 21 gts and Acs.9 – 05 gts in Sy.Nos.683 and 704 respectively of Narsapur Farm, Achanpalle shivar. They delivered the possessio