CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Order dated 2-11-1993 on la. No. Iv in o. s. No. 2321 of 1987 on the file of the xv additional city civil judge, bangalore, filed by the appellant-plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as hereunder : that, the appellant-plaintiff had filed the above suit as against the respondent-defendant for a declaration and permanent injunction and to restrain the respondent-defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property described as the portion of the lands bearing s. Nos. 42/3, 42/4 and 42/5 now re-s. No. 144 situated at mathikere village now within the corporation division No. 2, bangalore-54 measuring east to west on the northern side 115 feet, east to west on the southern side 65 feet, north to south on the eastern side 86 feet and north to south on the western side 102 feet. The appellant-plaintiff had also filed la. No. I for ad interim Order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent-defendant from interfering or meddling with the above suit schedule prop- erty. That, the ad interim Order of temporary injunction was granted by the xv additional city civil judge, bangalore (henceforth in brief as 'city civil judge') and subsequently on filing la. No. Ii for vacating the ad interim Order of temporary injunction, the appellant-plaintiff had filed a memo before the city civil judge undertaking that he would not put up any construction in the suit schedule property. . that the learned city civil judge had recorded the said memo having entertained the same. That, subsequently in filing the objection statement as well as la. No. Iv for an ad interim Order of temporary injunction as against by the appellant-plaintiff, the respondent-defendant contended that the suit schedule property is totally different from one under his peaceful possession and enjoyment and the property under his occupation is bearing No. 42/1 of mathikere village, measuring east to west 92 feet + 45 feet x north to south 98 feet + 80 feet. It is also seen that the schedule set out by the appellant-plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in his plaint is totally different from one set out in la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant. In the absence of the record of the city civil judge, the appellant-plaintiff had supplied me with the copy of la. It is also seen that the schedule set out by the appellant-plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in his plaint is totally different from one set out in la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant. In the absence of the record of the city civil judge, the appellant-plaintiff had supplied me with the copy of la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant before the learned city civil judge. ( 3 ) BY entertaining la. No. Iv and further entertaining the objection statement filed by the appellant-plaintiff, the city civil judge had heard the same and passed the impugned Order, whereby while allowing the said la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant, he had modified the Order on la. No. I granted in favour of the appellant-plaintiff to say that the appellant-plaintiff shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent-defendant with regard to the said extent of land in sy. No. 42/1. Having been aggrieved thereto, the appellant-plaintiff is before this court by filing the above appeal. Strictly speaking, the appellant-plaintiff cannot have any grievance to make out in filing the instant appeal, for, the Order passed by the city civil judge is nothing to do with the suit schedule property of the appellant-plaintiff; all the more he had preferred the appeal on the point of legality and propriety. ( 4 ) HAVING secured the copy of la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant before the learned city civil judge, I have to observe that the cause of action for filing la. No. Iv before the city civil judge as it has been setout in para 7 of the affidavit accompanying the said la. No. Iv, is that after obtaining the ad interim Order of temporary injunction in the above suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, the appellant-plaintiff tried to trespass into the above property of the defendant morefully set out in his interim application as above. Therefore, it is clear therefrom that the cause of action for filing la. No. Iv in the suit of the appellant-plaintiff is subsequent to the filing of the suit and further subsequent to the obtaining of the ad interim Order of temporary injunction on la. No. I filed by the appellant-plaintiff in his suit. Furthermore, the property that had been set out in la. No. Iv of the respondent-defendant is totally different from one set out in the plaint. No. I filed by the appellant-plaintiff in his suit. Furthermore, the property that had been set out in la. No. Iv of the respondent-defendant is totally different from one set out in the plaint. That being the position, it further appears to me that the learned city civil judge would not have modified the ad interim Order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the appellant-plaintiff on filing of la. No. Iv by the respondent-defendant in passing the impugned order. ( 5 ) AT this stage, I should point out that this appeal was heard by me on 17-3-1998 and was also allowed on the very day. But subsequently, the learned counsel for the respondent had filed an application (la. No. Iii) to recall the Order on the ground that the said appeal came to be allowed without he being heard, the reason being that on 17-3-1998 the learned counsel for the respondent was not present before court as he was otherwise engaged in connection with the marriage of his daughter. Therefore, the Order dated 17-3-1998 passed by this court in the appeal was recalled on 17-4-1998 after hearing Sri gupta. It is thereafter, the learned counsel for the respondent had argued the case and as such, I heard him at length. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent Sri gupta had taken me through the facts of the case and further taken me through the impugned Order under challenge. It is his submission that the respondent-defendant had to resort to la. No. Iv as the plaintiff tried to meddle with the property set out in la. No. Iv. As I see, the schedule property that was alleged to have been meddled with by the appellant-plaintiff is set out as hereunder : ( 7 ) IN la. No. Iv the^respondent-defendant had averred that after obtaining the ad interim Order of temporary injunction on la. No. 1 in o. s. No. 2321 of 1987 filed by the appellant-plaintiff, the appellant-plaintiff had tried to meddle with the above property of the respondent-defendant. ( 8 ) IT is specifically stated in para 7 in la. No. Iv the^respondent-defendant had averred that after obtaining the ad interim Order of temporary injunction on la. No. 1 in o. s. No. 2321 of 1987 filed by the appellant-plaintiff, the appellant-plaintiff had tried to meddle with the above property of the respondent-defendant. ( 8 ) IT is specifically stated in para 7 in la. No. Iv that after the court below had granted ad interim Order of temporary injunction ex parte, the appellant-plaintiff was attempting to trespass into the above property of the respondent-defendant and that he was trying to encroach upon the said land and trying to put up construction on the property. It was further averred therein that the appellant-plaintiff was also threatening the watchman of the respondent-defendant to go away from the place and to vacate the shed constructed by the respondent-defendant. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submitted that the cause of action to claim relief arose for the respondent-defendant out of the appellant-plaintiffs cause of action and that the same was incidental to it and as such, la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant was perfectly maintainable. Such an argument was advanced by Sri gupta for the reason that according to the respondent-defendant it is subsequent to the obtaining of the ad interim Order of temporary injunction in his original suit, the appellant-plaintiff tried to meddle with the property of the respondent-defendant. ( 10 ) IN support of his argument, he had also cited before me a decision Reported in Suganda Bai v Sulu Bai and others and further the decision of the division bench of this Court Reported in Ramaiah and others v Godappa and others. According to Sri gupta, the facts and circumstances in the reported cases and the facts and circumstances in the case in hand are one and same and as such the said decisions are totally applicable to the case in hand. Therefore he submitted that there is no merit in the instant appeal and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 11 ) I have carefully considered the points canvassed by the respective sides. At the threshold I have to point out here that the la. Therefore he submitted that there is no merit in the instant appeal and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 11 ) I have carefully considered the points canvassed by the respective sides. At the threshold I have to point out here that the la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defendant was with a clear pleading that subsequent to the obtaining of the ad interim Order of temporary injunction in o. s. No. 2321 of 1987 filed by the appellant-plaintiff before the learned city civil judge, he had tried to interfere with and meddle with the property of the respondent-defendant. As a matter of fact, the learned civil judge in para 7 of the Order under challenge had clearly observed that the subject properties in the suit of the appellant-plaintiff in o. s. No. 2321 of 1987 and in the la. Of the respondent-defendant are two different properties totally distinct and separate from one another. That aspect of the case has not been disputed either before me by Sri gupta. If that is so, it appears to me that if at all it is true that the appellant-plaintiff did interfere and meddle with the property of the respondent-defendant, the relief to him is not in filing i. a. No. Iv before the learned civil judge in the suit of the appellant-plaintiff, but to file a separate suit, for the cause of action, for the respondent-defendant is totally distinct and separate from the cause of action what the appellant-plaintiff had in filing his suit. ( 12 ) IN the said circumstances, it appears to me that the impugned Order passed by the learned civil judge in entertaining la. No. Iv and further granting ad interim Order of temporary injunction therein is totally erroneous and therefore the same is called for to be interfered with by this court in the instant appeal. ( 13 ) IN the decision in suganda bai's case, supra, it is clear that the defendant in a suit can claim relief if the same arises out of the plaintiffs cause of action or is incidental to it. ( 13 ) IN the decision in suganda bai's case, supra, it is clear that the defendant in a suit can claim relief if the same arises out of the plaintiffs cause of action or is incidental to it. The said position is made furthermore clear in the division bench ruling of this court in ramaiah's case, supra, very well relied upon by Sri gupta, for in para 8 of the decision, the learned judges had observed as hereunder : ( 14 ) IN the said reported case decided by the division bench of this court, the suit was for partition and separate possession. In the said circumstances, the division bench in endorsing the view of the learned single judge in suganda bai's case, supra, held that the cause of action for the defendant was incidental to the cause of action of the plaintiff. Having gone through the said two decisions I am not convinced to say that the ratios of the decisions in the said two decisions in any way are applicable to the instant case in hand, particularly when the cause of action for the suit by the appellant-plaintiff in filing his original suit is totally different and distinct from the cause of action for the respondent-defendant to resort to la. No. Iv. ( 15 ) IN my considered view, the best course that was open to the respondent-defendant was to file a suit on that cause of action and to seek for an interim Order as he sought for in the suit of the appellant-plaintiff in filing la. No. Iv. ( 16 ) IN the result, I pass the following : Order (i) the impugned otder passed by the learned city civil judge in allowing la. No. Jv to modify the ad interim Order of temporary injunction on la. 'no. I filed by the appellant-plaintiff and further granting ad interim Order of temporary injunction therein in re- spect of the property belonging to the respondent-defendant is set aside and in the process la. No. Iv filed by the respondent-defen- dant on the file of the city civil judge in o. s. No. 2321 of 1987 stands dismissed. ( 17 ) THE appeals therefore succeeds and accordingly allowed. No costs. --- *** --- .