JUDGMENT R.Raghunandan Rao, J. - This is a plaintiffs' appeal, filed against the judgment and decree of the agent to the Government, East Godavari District, Kakinada, dated 29.01.2020 in O.S.No.7 of 2019. 2. Heard Sri Y.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Forests. 3. The appellants claim ownership of ac.1.48 cents in R.S.No.4/a, ac.1.48 cents in R.S.No.4/aa, ac.1.48 cents in S.No.4/E, ac.1.47 cents in S.No.4/EEE and ac.1.47 cents in S.No.4/VU of Yerrampeta Village of Chintoor Revenue Mandal, Erstwhile Khammam District, now in East Godavari District. They appear to have filed O.S.No.31 of 2000 in the Court of the Special agent, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam seeking an injunction restraining the respondents, who are officials of the Forest Department, from interfering with their possession over the said land. Initially, the said Court had granted an interim direction in I.a.No.24 of 2000, by way of an order dated 17.04.2000. after a counter had been filed in the matter and after hearing the parties, the Court had vacated the said injunction by an order dated 18.09.2000. 4. Thereafter, the appellants filed O.S.NO.7 of 2019 before the agent for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. 5. This suit was dismissed by the agent by a judgment and decree dated 29.01.2020. In the order of dismissal, the agent holds that since the interim injunction, restraining the respondents, from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property has been dismissed, nothing survives in the present case and on that basis, dismissed the suit. 6. It is apparent that the agent was unable to understand the distinction between a suit for injunction and a suit for recovery of possession in fact the suit was dismissed without evidence being recorded even though the plaintiffs are said to have been present physically in the Court. 7. The appellants having accepted the fact that they were not in a position of suit schedule property, have filed the present suit for recovery of possession. Such a suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that their application, for temporary injunction restraining the other side, from interfering with their possession has been dismissed. 8. It appears that there has been clear non application of mind in the disposal of this suit and the same requires to be corrected at the earliest. 9. Such a suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that their application, for temporary injunction restraining the other side, from interfering with their possession has been dismissed. 8. It appears that there has been clear non application of mind in the disposal of this suit and the same requires to be corrected at the earliest. 9. accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the suit is remanded back to the agent, for a proper adjudication in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.