ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order and decree in C.M.A.No.9 of 2023 dated 13-06-2023 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Medchal.

2. The aforesaid CMA is filed by the respondent No.1 herein aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20-03-2023 in I.A.No.70 of 2023 in O.S.No.79 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, whereby the appellate Court had allowed the appeal by dismissing the order granting injunction by the trial Court in I.A.No.70 of 2023 in O.S.No.79 of 2023.

3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.79 of

2023 filed for perpetual injunction.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.14 gts in Sy.No.149/A having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing Doc. No.9436/1990 dated 29-10-1990 and owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.27 gts in Sy.No.150/B purchased under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.9434/1990 dated

29-10-1990, both situated in Kompally village, Medchal.

5. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had purchased an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.14 gts in Sy.No.149/A from one Smt. B. Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. Dasaratha, who in turn had purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.149/A under registered document bearing No.2993/1979 from Mir Ikramuddin Ali Khan; and that the land to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents was purchased from B. Yellamma and 5 others, who were the absolute owners and pattedars of ancestors’ dry land to an extent of Ac.0.27 gts in Sy.No.150/B along with other lands.

6. It is also the contention of the petitioner that on purchase of the aforesaid land under registered sale deed, he was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land till 1^st respondent started interfering with his possession and enjoyment claiming that the aforesaid lands are being developed by it under the Development Agreement entered into by the 3^rd respondent with it. Thus, petitioner contends that on seeing the efforts being made by the respondents, he had filed the suit being O.S.No.79 of 2023 for grant of perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

7. Petitioner further contends that along with the suit, he had also filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.70 of 2023 seeking for grant of an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the suit schedule property; and that the trial Court initially had granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the respondents therein, and on the 1^st respondent filing counter, by order dated 07-02-2023 had made the ex parte ad interim injunction absolute.

8. Petitioner contends that on the trial Court passing the order making the ex parte ad interim injunction absolute, the respondents herein had preferred appeal vide C.M.A.No.8 of 2023 under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C.; and that the appellate Court by its order dated 03-03-2023 had set aside the order of the trial Court dated 07-02-2023 and directed the trial Court to decide the matter afresh on merits.

9. Petitioner further contends that on the appellate Court setting aside the order dated 07-02-2023 passed in I.A.No.70 of 2023 in O.S.No.79 of 2023, the trial Court had heard I.A.No.70 of 2023 afresh, and by order dated 20-03-2023 allowed the said application and made the interim order dated 07-02-2023 absolute by granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents restraining them from interfering with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties.

10. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the respondents herein filing an appeal against the order of the trial Court dated 20-03-2023, under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. vide C.M.A.No.9 of 2023, the appellate Court by its order dated 13-06-2023 allowed the appeal by dismissing the I.A.No.70 of 20023 in O