THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.51 OF 2010 DT.12.04.2010 (PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Between: Guggilla Sunitha ………..Appellant Vs. Kola Lachaiah and eleven others …………….Respondents. JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the un-successful petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 15.09.2009 passed in I.A.No.291 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., seeking to restrain the respondents from raising any structures in the suit land and from disturbing the status-quo of the suit schedule property was dismissed. Heard Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri M.Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 11 and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.12. At the instance of both the learned counsel, the appeal is being disposed of. The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.15 of 2007 for specific performance of contract under a plain un-registered agreement of sale. Admittedly, no possession has been delivered therein. Pending suit, the appellant/plaintiff filed I.A.No.291 of 2009. The court below after considering the respective submissions and perusing the material placed on record, did not find favour with the appellant/plaintiff and thereby dismissed the application holding that as the respondents obtained possession over the said land and the balance of convenience also did not lie in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, no irreparable loss or injury would be caused to the appellant/plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal. Having heard the learned counsel and also perusing the material placed on record, it is seen that prima facie, the suit itself being for specific performance, which is an equitable relief. Admittedly no possession has been delivered to the appellant/plaintiff under the agreement of sale. That apart, respondents herein claim their title under the guise of registered sale deeds, which have already been obtained and in view of the undertaking given by the respondents that they would pull down the structures in case the petitioner succeeds in the suit and also deliver possession same, nothing can be said against the respondents. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the order passed in the application, we are of the view that no case has been made out to warrant any interference in the discretion, which has been rightly exercised by the court below. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, directing the court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., ________________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.12.04.2010 tjs