ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice to the respondent, none appears.

2. This revision is filed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge in C.M.A. No. 06 of 2022 dated 21.12.2022 confirming the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No. 245 of 2021 in O.S.No. 1170 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool dated 10.05.2022 granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/petitioner/plantiff.

3. The respondent initiated the action against the petitioner in O.S.No. 1170 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool seeking the grant of permanent injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property for the Flat Nos. 205 and 305 with two car parkings as mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner herein as the defendant and owner of the Flat No. 303 of the same apartments. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above I.A. No. 245 of 2021 in O.S.No. 1170 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool and upon hearing the matter on merits the trial court granted the temporary injunction with respect to the car parkings for the Flat Nos. 205 and 305 relying upon the document vide Ex. A1 i.e., the sale deed executed by the Punjab National Bank in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No. 6 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool and the same was disposed of vide order dated 21.12.2022 confirming the order passed by the trial court, observing that the crux of the case is with regard to the car parking area of Flat Nos. 205, 305 and 303 and it is a crucial question to be decided during the course of trial.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein submits that the petitioner is the owner of Flat No. 303 of the said apartments with car parking facility. But the said car parking area claimed by the petitioner herein is also claimed by the respondent under his sale deeds which was executed by the bank as state above. The subject matter of the suit ultimately remains with the car parking area for the above said three flats.

5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and rival contentions raised by the both parties, the trial court has to proceed with the suit for the purpose of deciding which flat has got car parking area facility and which is not having? If all the three flats got the car parking area, then by identifying the same, whether both the parties are having separate earmarked car parking areas for their respective flats have to be seen. These issues have to be determined after a full-fledged trial and hearing of the suit. It is open for both the parties to take necessary steps for localisation of the parking area for the said flats in accordance with law. For the purpose of giving finality to the suit, the trial court is directed to proceed with the suit strictly in accordance with law by disposing of the same within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is open for the petitioner herein to raise all the relevant objections/grounds in the suit permissible under law.

6. During the pendency of the suit, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject car parking covered under the suit schedule and the same is subject to outcome of the suit.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed off.

No costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

31.08.2023

UPS