IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.349 OF 2011 Between: Marothu Ramunaidu and others ..... APPELLANTS AND Bobbari Sankara Narayana ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.349 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: Appellants filed O.S.No.506 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed. Thereupon, the appellants filed A.S.No.111 of 2010 in the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act – cum – Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. They have also filed I.A.No.751 of 2010, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, for temporary injunction. The application was opposed by the respondent. The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. though an order, dated 10.02.2011. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Smt. T. V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. only on the ground that no order of temporary injunction was in force during the pendency of the suit. She contends that the appellants did not feel the necessity of filing an application of this nature because no attempt was made by the respondent to cut the trees. Learned counsel submits that the respondent has obtained permission from the competent authority to cut the trees and the said fact is sufficient to grant an order of temporary injunction. 3. Sri G. Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that an appeal being continuation of a suit, no order of temporary injunction can be granted unless such an arrangement existed during the pendency of the suit. He submits that the trial Court recorded a finding that the appellants are not in possession of the suit schedule property and as such, they are not entitled for any temporary injunction. 4. It is true that the application of the nature filed in A.S.No.111 of 2010 was not filed during the pendency of the suit. Normally, in a suit of this nature, the relief of temporary injunction would be as to possession. The present application is filed for temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from cutting the trees. It is only when an apprehension arises in that behalf, that the application can be filed. Even if, there was any uncertainty in the case of the appellants, the same stood fortified, by the fact that the respondent had obtained permission from the competent authority to cut the trees. If the trees are taken away, substantial injustice and loss would be caused to the parties. 5. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.751 of 2010 is allowed and there shall be temporary injunction as prayed for restraining the respondent from cutting the trees upon the suit land henceforth, till the disposal of A.S.No.111 of 2010. The lower appellate Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J July 07, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/O.MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.349 OF 2011 July 07, 2011