M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against an order dated 2-8-1994 whereby the trial Court has refused him an injunction. The appellant had prayed for an order restraining the respondents from putting up any construction on the Schedule 'a' property pending disposal of the suit. The respondents had resisted the application principally on the ground that they are an educational institution to whom the land in question has been allotted by the B. D. A. , pursuant to the same having been taken over through acquisition proceedings and consequently, they submit that they are fully entitled and justified to put up whatever construction the institution requires for purposes of the education activities which they are carrying on. It is also clarified by the respondents' learned advocate that since the suit is pending before the trial Court, that the structure in question is only a temporary shelter and is not a permanent structure. ( 2 ) THE principal ground canvassed by the appellant's learned advocate is that the identity of the plot itself is in dispute. It is his contention that his client is in possession of that area and that the respondents, who are entitled only to use the adjoining plot, have encroached into his property. He submits that even if they are entitled to use their own property, that they should be restrained from putting up any construction as far as the appellant's property is concerned. The learned trial judge has, after a detailed consideration of the facts, come to the conclusion that the appellant has absolutely no right as far as that property is concerned and that the respondents are fully justified in carrying out the construction in question. ( 3 ) AS far as this facet of the matter is concerned, after hearing learned advocates and examining the material placed before me, I am of the view that the finding of the learned trial Judge, as far as this aspect of the case is concerned, is not only well considered, but that it is correct my mind, no interference is called for as far as the finding of fact is concerned. ( 4 ) THERE is a subsidiary plea canvassed by the respondents' learned advocate with regard to the aspect of maintainability. ( 4 ) THERE is a subsidiary plea canvassed by the respondents' learned advocate with regard to the aspect of maintainability. It is his contention that the appellant had earlier filed O. S. No. 451/90 in respect of an identical dispute and the learned trial Judge, in paragraph 15 of the order, has referred to this proceeding and has observed that the appellant, if at all aggrieved, would have filed an interim application in the existing proceeding, instead of which, he has filed a second suit. Respondents' learned advocate has challenged the maintainability of the present suit. The appellant's learned advocate has relied on two decisions, the first of them reported in AIR 1970 SC 1059 in the case of Siddaramappa v. Raja Shetty and the second decision is a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in AIR 1971 Mysore 156 in the case of B. Shambumal Gangaram v. State Bank of Mysore. With regard to the aspect of maintainability, appellant's learned advocate relies on the principle enunciated in the decisions which lays down that a subsequent suit on a different cause of action, even if it is between the same parties, is not barred. I have no hesitation in accepting this proposition, but the real question is an issue of fact, namely, as to whether the present suit would be barred by virtue of the existence of the earlier one. For this purpose, the Court is required to examine not the mere wording of the prayer clause, but the Court would effectively have to scrutinise the respective plaints and find out the real essence of the cause of action. The appellant's learned advocate submitted that his client moved the Court in 1990 principally because the compound wall was being constructed at that point of time. He points out that as far as the present dispute is concerned, the cause of action is entirely different in so far as the respondents are attempting to put down concrete pillars, which is preparation for a permanent construction. He, therefore, submits that the cause of action in the two suits is not the same. ( 5 ) THIS position is seriously contested by the other side. I do not propose to adjudicate on this aspect of the matter, because it is really within the province of the trial court, if and when the parties raise this question. He, therefore, submits that the cause of action in the two suits is not the same. ( 5 ) THIS position is seriously contested by the other side. I do not propose to adjudicate on this aspect of the matter, because it is really within the province of the trial court, if and when the parties raise this question. Suffice it to say, however, that the point raised by the respondents' learned advocate does merit serious consideration. ( 6 ) THE appellant's learned advocate has further submitted that regardless of the aspect of acquisition, that his client has applied to the B. D. A. for reconveyance of the land in question to him. He has produced a receipt dated 16-9-1994 issued by the B. D. A. in respect of Survey No. 23, site No. 11, indicating that a representation has been received by the authority. It is submitted that since the matter is under consideration of the authorities, that at least the status quo should be maintained, as otherwise, if the construction is completed, even if the B. D. A. desires to reconvey the property to the appellant, that the entire exercise would be frustrated. I am unable to agree to this request for the reason that in the face of the finding that the acquisition has been completed and that the allocation has been made to the respondent- institution, no Court of law can stay the user of the land, particularly in cases where an educational institution is involved, merely on the ground that the opposite party is hopeful of obtaining some orders from some authority. ( 7 ) UNDER these circumstances, to my mind, the order passed by the trial Court does not require any interference with. The appeal accordingly fails and stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .