THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.526 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.986 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed on 25.03.2010. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.145 of 2010 in the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He has also filed I.A.No.1708 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The application was opposed by the respondents. The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 22.06.2010. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri D.Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 The suit filed by the appellant herein was the one for injunction simplicitor. The suit was dismissed and the appeal was filed. An appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. being continuation of the suit, the state of affairs that were existing during the pendency of the suit, need to be continued at the stage of appeal also, unless the situation warrants a different arrangement. In the instant case, though the appellant was granted an order of ad-interim injunction, on a contest made by the respondents, it was vacated. The situation does not improve in favour of the appellant after the suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents are making construction over the suit schedule property. It is made clear that any construction made by the respondents shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.07.2010 kdl