Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against a docket order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (‘Trial Court’) in an application filed by the appellant for interim injunction against the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in a Suit for declaration of title against the respondents/defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties viz., lands in Sy.No.376/3/A situated at Batasingaram Revenue Village and Gram Panchayat, Abdullapur Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Trial Court dismissed the appellant’s I.A. on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the I.A.

3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the lands in question had undergone conversion into non-agricultural lands in 2013 by reason of which the appellant was unable to produce the Revenue Records reflecting his name. It is further submitted that the photographs relied upon by the appellant indicating the specific survey numbers/lands which were in possession of the respondent No.1 amounted to sufficient evidence to show that the respondents were trying to interfere with the appellant’s possession over the suit schedule properties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the appellant had been unable to place any evidence of possession of the suit schedule properties which resulted in the dismissal of the appellant’s I.A.

6. We have considered the relevant documents placed before us including the specific documents mentioned in the impugned order.

7. The documents relied upon on behalf of the appellant include two registered Agreements of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 19.09.2016 and 20.09.2016 executed between the appellant’s vendor/principal and the appellant, as well as two Sale Deeds both dated 13.02.2017, executed by the appellant as the GPA holder of the vendor in his own favour in respect of the suit schedule properties. None of the documents reflect the fact of the appellant’s possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the I.A. i.e., as of February, 2025.

8. The impugned order also records that the appellant filed copies of the Pattadar Passbook of the appellant’s vendor, the conversion proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Saroornagar in favour of the appellant’s vendor as well as the pahanis and land records relating to the period between 1954-1955 to 2011–2012. The Trial Court accordingly found that the latest document relied on by the appellant to establish a claim of possession over the suit schedule properties pertains to 2011–2012 whereas the appellant had purchased the suit schedule properties subsequently in 2016. The Trial Court also found that the appellant had not filed any document to prove that the appellant’s name was mutated in the Revenue Records after purchasing the suit schedule properties. The appellant had also failed to file other relevant documents including his Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds with respect to the suit schedule properties as well as the pahanis showing the appellant’s possession over the said properties on the date of filing of the I.A.

9. Even if we were to ignore the lack of relevance of the other documents filed by the appellant before the Trial Court or relied on in the present Appeal, it is undisputed that the appellant was unable to place any document before the Trial Court to show that the appellant was in possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the I.A. i.e., February, 2025. The Trial Court accordingly found that the appellant had failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the I.A. and was hence not entitled to an order of injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In the absence of any document in satisfaction of the primary requirement of the appellant being in possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the I.A., we are unable to come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court.

10. The contention of the appellant that he was unable to produce pahanis/land records subsequent to 2012 by reason of the conversion proceedings in 2013 is a fact which should be established in the trial of the Suit. The appellant’s prayer for ad interim injunction against the respondents can only be founded on a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, which in turn would necessitate the appellant being in possession over the suit schedule properties.

11. We are unable to find any error in the impugned order refusing to grant injunction against the respondents, in light of the appellant having failed to satisfy the requirement of showing possession of the suit schedule properties. We accordingly find no scope for interference with the impugned order.

12. CMA.No.207 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Needless to say, the Trial Court shall make its best effort to dispose of the appellant’s Suit (O.S.No.65 of 2025) as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present Appeal shall not have any bearing on the trial of the Suit.