IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2311 OF 2010 Between : Asadi Muni Reddy. .... PETITIONER A N D Bakka Rudra Reddy …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2311 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 15.02.2010 in I.A.No.12 of 2010 in A.S.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to grant interim injunction, was dismissed. 2. The Original Suit No.189 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, was filed by the petitioner herein/appellant for permanent injunction. Basing on the evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant filed appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an Interlocutory Application seeking interim injunction and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. In the suit, the petitioner failed to establish that he has got prima facie case, balance of convenience and possession as on the date of suit. Therefore, whether the petitioner is entitled for interim injunction or not has to be decided basing on the appreciation of evidence on record by the first appellate Court. The observation of first appellate Court that Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC have no application to appeals is untenable, because, appeal is continuation to the suit. Whatever the provisions apply to suits would equally applicable in the appeals. Unless the petitioner establishes prima facie, the findings of the trial Court are perverse, interim injunction cannot be granted. As the petitioner failed to establish his possession, the appellate Court rightly dismissed the injunction petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 14, 2011 YVL