THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1395 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed questioning the order and decree made in I.A.No.178 of 2008 in A.S.No.30 of 2008 dated 2.6.2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereunder the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction was dismissed. Appellants are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants. Appellants filed suit in O.S.No.19 of 2002 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. However, the suit was dismissed after full trial vide decree and judgment dated 7.12.2007. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiffs filed appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2008 before the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Along with the appeal, they have also filed I.A.No.178 of 2008 seeking interim injunction during the pendency of appeal. It was the contention of the appellants that althrough they had injunction during the pendency of suit and the appeal is nothing but continuation of suit proceedings, therefore they are entitled for injunction during the pendency of appeal. The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 2.6.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A. is filed. This Court, while ordering notice to the respondents on 3.12.2008, granted interim injunction for a period of four weeks and thereafter it was extended from time to time and is subsisting as on today. The very appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is still pending and now it is more than two years since the injunction granted by this Court is subsisting. Therefore, I am of the opinion that vacating interim injunction at this stage may not serve any purpose. The balance of convenience is in favour of appellants for continuing the injunction during the pendency of appeal before the appellate court. Therefore, the interim injunction granted by this Court on 3.12.2008 shall continue during the pendency of A.S.No.30 of 2008 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court is directed to decide the said appeal on its own merits within a period of (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that any observations made by the appellate Court in the order under challenge need not be taken into consideration while deciding the appeal on merits. The CMA is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.6.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1395 of 2008 17.6.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.1395 of 2008 Date: 17th June, 2010 Between: Munnur Sailu (died) per L.Rs. Munnur Bhavani alias Bovaiah & others. .. Appellants And Syed Habeeb and another. .. Respondents