IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.817 OF 2011 Date:28.09.2011 Between:- D.Bhimla ..Appellant And D.Lakshmi and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against the order, dated 04.07.2011, in I.A.No.2331 of 2011 in A.S.No.158 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the appeal was allowed. 2. Originally, the respondents herein filed O.S.No.417 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the appellant herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Pending disposal of the suit, they filed I.A.No.385 of 2007 for grant of temporary injunction and the same was allowed. Later, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, they preferred A.S.No.158 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and pending disposal of the appeal, they filed I.A.No.2331 of 2011 for grant of temporary injunction and the same was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/defendant preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that as the respondents/plaintiffs approached the Court with unclean hands, they are not entitled to equitable relief of injunction; that they have not established the three principles viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that while the suit was pending, temporary injunction was granted and after trial, the suit was dismissed; that aggrieved thereby, the appeal was filed and during the pendency of the appeal, the application was filed to grant temporary injunction and interim injunction was granted; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to sustain the same. 5. Grant or refusal of injunction is covered by three well established principles, namely, (1) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case (2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and (3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. 6. The suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, appeal was filed. During pendency of the appeal, temporary injunction was granted. Considering the fact that an injunction was granted by the trial Court when the suit was pending, the appellate Court rightly granted temporary injunction pending disposal of the appeal. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and this appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that the rights of parties have to be decided in the appeal. The appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to other old and part heard cases. 7. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28th September, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.817 OF 2011 Date:28.09.2011 AMD