JUDGMENT : 1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 14.03.2024 passed in CMA No.8 of 2023 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool confirming the order dated 29.09.2022 passed in IA No.19 of 2022 in OS No.3 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District (for short "the Trial Court"). 2. The parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The petition and respondent No.1 are no other than the siblings and children of Late M. Ahmed Hussain. The petitioner has preferred civil suit in OS No.3 of 2018 before the Trial Court seeking for cancellation of registered settlement deed dated 01.11.2014 said to have bene executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the plaint schedule property as null and void and for grant of permanent injunction. The petitioner filed interlocutory application vide IA No.19 of 2022 in OS No.3 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondent No.2 and his henchmen from entering into the petition schedule property without due process of law till disposal of the main suit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and other legal heirs of Late Momin Ahmed Hussain are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. Karnataka Bank Limited, Anantapur got the schedule property auctioned under the provisions of SARFAESI Act through its authorized officer, basing on symbolic possession, without physical and actual possession and indeed, the schedule property being used as auto parking stand by Shaik Basha of Amalapuram Village, Atmakur Mandal and other auto drivers by paying monthly rents to the petitioner and the schedule property is used as an auto-stand since thirty years. One tenant by name N. Anjaneyulu is using a corner of the schedule property for keeping centering polls depot. During the lifetime of M. Ahmed Hussain, one tourist lodge represented by its Proprietor B. Gouse Azam has been using the part of petition schedule property for parking his customers' vehicles on payment of rent to the petitioner. One tenant by name N. Anjaneyulu is using a corner of the schedule property for keeping centering polls depot. During the lifetime of M. Ahmed Hussain, one tourist lodge represented by its Proprietor B. Gouse Azam has been using the part of petition schedule property for parking his customers' vehicles on payment of rent to the petitioner. While the matter stood thus, the respondent No.2 who is a collusive auction purchaser threatened the tenants on 02.01.2022 that he would bring JCB vehicle and dismantle the shed situated in the schedule property and also overthrew the autos parked therein. Karnataka Bank Limited, Anantapur took the schedule property as security without proper enquiry about the right and title of respondent No.1 and granted loan in collusion with respondent No.1 who is the principal borrower for extraneous consideration and without looking into the validity of the settlement deed dated 01.11.2014 which stands in the name of respondent No.1. The title of respondent No.1 is under challenge in the civil suit. As respondent No.2 is about to enter into the schedule property unlawfully, without due process of law, respondent No.2 with the help of local police, tried to trespass into the schedule property. Respondent No.2 highhandedly removed the board on 12.01.2022, however, the petitioner's people re-fixed it immediately. Petitioner gave intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool on 11.01.2022 in person and by registered post regarding the highhandedness of the collusive auction purchaser/R2 and the petitioner also gave representation to the Sub-Inspector of Police by registered post. Hence, the petition. 5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Trial Court. The 2nd respondent has filed its counter before the Trial Court denying the allegations made in the petition. The sum and substance of the 2nd respondent is that respondent No.1 and another person M/s. Raakin Motors, represented by its Partners, executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of Karnataka Bank Limited, Anantapur Branch and availed loan of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Subsequently, the loan was classified as NPA. The bank authorities got issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3) of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The demand notice was served to respondent No.1. Subsequently, the loan was classified as NPA. The bank authorities got issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3) of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The demand notice was served to respondent No.1. The authorized officer of Karnataka Bank took possession of the schedule property as per Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and possession was also taken by the authorized officer by issuing possession notice to respondent No.1 on 28.11.2017 and possession publication was also got issued in two newspapers on 01.12.2017. On 15.09.2021, auction was conducted and respondent No.2 participated in the auction and declared as highest bidder and he purchased the schedule property in the open auction for Rs.1,53,30,000. The authorized officer executed a registered sale certificate on 31.12.2021 and delivered possession to respondent No.2 and from the date of delivery of possession, respondent No.2 has been in physical possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. It is further stated that, on 16.09.2021, respondent No.2 and Karnataka Bank Officials received a legal notice from the petitioner's Counsel, they also received notice from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad challenging the sale. The Debts Recovery Tribunal did not grant any stay. Respondent No.2 paid the entire sale consideration and bank authorities executed a registered sale certificate and delivered possession of the same. Thus, respondent No.2 is a bona fide purchaser. It is stated that the suit is not maintainable in view of proceedings pending under SARFAESI Act, as cu the question of trespassing into schedule open site by taking police assistance does not arise. The schedule property is an open site and bank took possession long back itself and the petitioner created some photos and filed a false suit with collusion of 1st respondent. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, prayed to dismiss the petition. After careful consideration of material on record and on considering the documents produced by both the parties, the IA No.19 of 2022 was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred CMA No.8 of 2023 before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for short "the lower Court"). 6. The lower Court, after hearing the arguments of both the appellant as well as 2nd respondent's Counsels, made the following points for determination : 1. Whether the petitioner has established the three salutary principles of temporary injunction? 2. 6. The lower Court, after hearing the arguments of both the appellant as well as 2nd respondent's Counsels, made the following points for determination : 1. Whether the petitioner has established the three salutary principles of temporary injunction? 2. Whether the order passed by the Trial Court needs any interference? 7. The Lower Court after hearing the arguments of both the Counsels and after careful consideration of material on record, has dismissed the CMA by holding that, in the absence of sufficient documents to establish the possession of the petitioner in respect of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit without any hesitation and also held that the petitioner failed to establish his possession over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 documents are not sufficient to prove possession of the petitioner in respect of the schedule priority. Further held that, the contention of the petitioner is that, it is only a symbolic possession to 2nd respondent and the said aspect is also to be considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, the lower Court found any legal grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court, has dismissed the CMA. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed. 8. This Court vide order dated 09.08.2024, while issuing notice before admission, has granted stay of all further proceedings in OS No. of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. 9. Heard Smt. K. Pallavi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. On hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that the order of the lower Court is illegal and contrary. He submits that the Courts below ought to have accepted the evidence of PW1 to PW4 in the suit, which clinchingly prove the physical possession of the schedule property by the petitioner and his tenants, who are in occupation of the schedule property from past 30 years and they are paying rents to the petitioner till date. He submits that the Courts below ought to have accepted the evidence of PW1 to PW4 in the suit, which clinchingly prove the physical possession of the schedule property by the petitioner and his tenants, who are in occupation of the schedule property from past 30 years and they are paying rents to the petitioner till date. She further submits that the Courts below drastically erred in coming to conclusion that Ex.P1 is a genuine one and it is the settled stand of the petitioner that Ex.P1 is a void document obtained by the 1st respondent by taking advantage of the ill-health of Late M. Ahammed Hussain, when it is the case of the petitioner that his late father used to sign in Telugu. But never put Left Hand Thumb impression and he was unable to move out of the house, without the assistance of the others. Further, both the Courts ought to have taken into consideration the crucial fact that the last line of Ex.P1 is in hand writing, whereas the entire Ex.P1 is typed one that itself shows that Ex.P1 is concocted. She further submits that the Court below erred in believing the summons of the 2nd respondent and the paper version of the aspect of possession. She submits that the Court below failed to consider the fact that 2nd respondent could not file any documentary proof of mutation of the name of 1st respondent in respect of Ex.P1 to accept the genuineness of the Ex.P1, whereas it is the settled stand of the petitioner that no possession is given to the 1st respondent under Ex.P1 nor to the Bank in question, who has granted a huge loan to the 1st respondent by creating mortgage of the schedule property, without considering the title of Ex.P1 and also without proper enquiry. He further submits that the Court below failed to accept the contention of the appellant and his witnesses and more particularly Ex.P1, which is photo depicting the schedule property and the possession of the appellant. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petition requests this Court to allow the present revision petition. 11. He further submits that the Court below failed to accept the contention of the appellant and his witnesses and more particularly Ex.P1, which is photo depicting the schedule property and the possession of the appellant. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petition requests this Court to allow the present revision petition. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the 2nd respondent has filed counter and in the counter he stated that revision petitioner and the 1st respondent are own brothers and the 1st respondent availed bank loan for a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and failed to pay the bank loan and was classified as NPA and bank has taken legal steps and conducted public auction as per due procedure of law. He further submits that revision petitioner and 1st respondent colluded each other and blackmail the 2nd respondent and filed a civil suit for the purpose of wrongful gain though the 2nd respondent contesting before the special Court DRT under Securitization Act, but failed to add bank as a necessary party before the Civil Court. he submits that the revision petitioner relying on the deposition copies Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 before this Court without any cross-examination by the 2nd respondent as he was not added as a party at that time and evidence of PW1 and PW4 is recalled for cross-examination of 2nd respondent, hence the revision petitioner himself not marked depositions of PW1 to PW4 before the Trial Court as well Appellate Court. He submits that the revision petitioner seeking injunction against the 2nd respondent only and moreover 1st respondent not filed any counter before the Trial Court, but 1st respondent added as a party to delay the proceedings before this Court. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 12. On perusing the material available on record and on considering the submission of both the learned Counsels, this Court observed that, it is no doubt true that there is a photo attached to the sale certificate which contains some autos as contended by the petitioner's Counsel but the said photo is not sufficient to prove that the autos belong to the tenants of the petitioner. It requires evidence to prove that there are some tenants in the schedule property under the control of the petitioner and the tenants are paying rents not only to the petitioner but also to the other legal heirs of Late M. Ahmed Hussain. These are all the facts to be established by the petitioner during the course of trial before the Trial Court. To substantiate his evidence, the petitioner has not produced any material and in the absence of sufficient documents in respect of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, this Court feels that the Courts below have rightly dismissed the application and CMA, warrant no inference. Finding no merit in the instant civil revision petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. 14. It is made clear that the interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2012 is hereby vacated.