THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.660 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The first respondent filed O.S.No.549 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North), Ranga Reddy District, against the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that the suit plot was purchased under sale deed, dated 28.12.1995 through the GPA of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are interfering with his possession of the property. The appellant, on the other hand, pleaded that respondent Nos.2 and 3, the real owners of the property, have cancelled the GPA on 01.12.1995 and thereafter, executed sale deed in favour of the appellant on 08.08.1996. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein supported the case of the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit on 18.04.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.284 of 2006 in the Court of I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. In that appeal, he filed I.A.No.2294 of 2006 with a prayer to restrain the first respondent from making constructions over the suit schedule property. Through its order, dated 25.02.2009, the lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The appellant had availed the remedy of appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.549 of 2000. Normally, the state of affairs that are obtaining during pendency of the suit, are required to be continued during the pendency of the appeal also. The reason is that an appeal is treated as continuation of the suit. It is only when extraordinary circumstances exist, that a different view can be taken. In the instant case, it is the first respondent, who filed the suit for injunction. Obviously, he had the benefit of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The fact, however, remains that the permission for making constructions over the suit schedule property was obtained by the first respondent, after the suit was decreed. If nature of the property is altered during the pendency of the appeal, several complications would arise. This Court is of the view that no serious prejudice would be caused to the first respondent, in case he is restrained from making constructions over the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the appeal. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2294 of 2006 shall stand allowed and the first respondent is directed not to make any construction over the suit schedule property. The lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal, within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19th AUGUST, 2009. kvni