HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A. NO. 18 OF 2010 Between: Smt Suresh Kumar S/o Santha Mohana Rao .....Appellant AND Kowtha Siva Purnananda Teja and one another .....Respondents JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED ) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Order dated 3.11.2009 passed in I.A.No. 2389 of 2009 in O.S.No. 126 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed Suit i.e., O.S.No. 126 of 2009 seeking exparte temporary injunction in his favour restraining the defendants 1 & 2 from ever causing construction work or masonry work in the petition schedule property till disposal of the suit. Pending suit he also filed I.A.No. 2389 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w 151 CPC, to grant an exparte temporary injunction which was granted initially and the petition was dismissed later vacating the exparte temporary injunction granted by the Court below on 6.7.2009 holding that the plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court below failed to see in the earlier Suit i.e. O.S.No. 299 of 2008 the relief is sought on the strength of pleadings of possession of the appellant and in the present suit the relief is for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.3.2007 and therefore, the cause of action for the impugned suit is different and distinct from the earlier pleadings. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, plaintiff earlier filed I.A.No. 299 of 2008 in O.S.No. 299 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Vijayawada against the second respondent and one Harinath Babu to whom the respondents 3 to 5 are the legal heirs was dismissed on 30.6.2008 where as the suit O.S.No. 126 of 2009 was filed on 6.7.2009. Therefore, the Court below observed that the order passed by the competent Court against the plaintiff in favour of the respondent was earlier than the present suit and hence, that itself clearly proves the fact that the plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands and therefore, prima facie case and balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the I.A. In the circumstances in view of an earlier order in O.S.No. 299 of 2008, we see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, any construction made will be subject to the result of O.S.No. 126 of 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY,J DATE: 05.10.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.