THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CMA.No.493 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.438 of 2007 in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the respondent for the relief of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and consequential injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 30.10.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.56 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. He also filed I.A.No.885 of 2010 in the appeal under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to grant temporary injunction. It was pleaded that though the respondent did not interfere with the possession during the pendency of the suit, he started meddling with it taking advantage of dismissal of the suit. The application was opposed by the respondent. The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 29.04.2010. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Heard Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. In an appeal, normally, the state of affairs that obtained during the pendency of the suit would be continued. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that there was no temporary injunction in favour of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal. The respondent is none other than the brother of the appellant. The suit is based on the plea of adverse possession. The lower appellate Court was not inclined to grant temporary injunction for the first time. This Court does not find any fault with the order passed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 28th JUNE, 2010. kvni