ORDER : Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/Respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2014 in C.M.A. No. 5 of 2013 on the file of VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet, Medak District under which the order and decree dated 30.01.2013 in I.A. No. 942 of 2012 in O.S. No. 279 of 2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet was set aside. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner herein filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the petition schedule property and he also filed a petition for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in I.A. No. 942 of 2012 and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order the respondents herein preferred the appeal before the learned District Judge and the same was allowed by setting aside the I.A. No. 942 of 2012. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule property i.e., house site plot to an extent of 132.30 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 1497 situated near New Tahsildar Office, Prashanthinagar, Siddipet and purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No. 3716/2012, dated 24.07.2012 by paying entire sale consideration from one Vasala Padma Reddy and was inducted into possession on the same day and since then he was in peaceful possession of the petition schedule property and he started the construction in petition schedule property by obtaining necessary permissions and paying taxes to Municipal authorities and by obtaining electricity connection. The Respondents who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property on 11.12.2002 with a dishonest intention tried to interfere in the petition schedule property by creating bogus and fabricated documents and prayed to grant temporary injunction. The Respondents who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property on 11.12.2002 with a dishonest intention tried to interfere in the petition schedule property by creating bogus and fabricated documents and prayed to grant temporary injunction. The respondents filed counter contending that the present suit is counter blast to O.S. No. 273 of 2012 which is filed by Respondent No. 2 herein for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction challenging the claim of purchase of suit/petition schedule property and this suit is filed after service of injunction warrant on petitioner/plaintiff herein and now the present suit is for mere ancillary relief without seeking for efficacious and substantial relief, and also contended that the respondents are no way concerned with the suit schedule property is wrong and the respondents created bogus and false documents and tried to interrupt the construction is false, in fact, the petitioner has been putting his efforts to usurp the petition schedule property and further submitted that the petitioner in utter violation of interim injunction dated 17.12.2012 in their absence during the night hours trespassed into schedule property and dug 6 pits with JCB and erected 6 pillars laid with RCC concrete upto ground level and also submitted that there is no case to be tried muchless prima facie case and no balance of convenience and hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. After hearing both sides and after perusal of the material on record, the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the application by granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff restraining the respondents/defendants or anybody on their behalf from in any way interfering into the petition schedule property in possession of plaintiff till disposal of the main suit. Against the same, C.M.A No. 5 of 2013 was filed by the respondents and the same was allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.01.2013 in I.A. No. 942 of 2012 in O.S. No. 279 of 2012, holding that there is no prima facie case for want to clear title in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Against the same, C.M.A No. 5 of 2013 was filed by the respondents and the same was allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.01.2013 in I.A. No. 942 of 2012 in O.S. No. 279 of 2012, holding that there is no prima facie case for want to clear title in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff as revision petitioner filed this revision contending that the appellate order passed by the learned District Judge is contrary to law and the Court below committed material irregularity in deciding the title, whereas for injunction pending suit, the possession has to be mainly looked into and the Court below ought to have seen that Ex. A-1 to A-8 clearly establish the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property and ought to have dismissed the appeal and the Court below ought to have seen that Ex. B-1 does not pertain to the respondents and it is for M. Sridevi to question the sale deed and possession of the petitioner, that the respondents being third parties cannot question the title and possession of the petitioner, that the Court below ought to have seen that the affidavit of Vendor of the petitioner clearly discloses that parties the sale deed i.e., Ex. B-1 rescinded the contract and M. Sridevi relinquished her right over the property from which the petitioner became absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and hence prayed to allow the revision. 6. In support of the contention, the revision petitioner placed reliance upon para-17 of the observations of the Apex Court in Ramdaan V. Urban Improvement Trust (2014)8 SCC 902 that where both the parties could not make out title, if plaintiffs are able to show/establish their possession, temporary injunction can be granted pending the suit. 7. Against the said submission, the respondents-defendants placed reliance on four expressions. One is Kashi Math Samsthan V. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy (2010) 1 SCC 689 where at para No. 16 it was observed by the Apex Court that out of all the three requirements are necessary to make out viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury for entitlement to the temporary injunction. Prima facie case is such that, it shall be proved that the plaintiff can go for trial. The expression speaks that there must be involvement of triable issue. Prima facie case is such that, it shall be proved that the plaintiff can go for trial. The expression speaks that there must be involvement of triable issue. In the other expression of Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Ultra Drytech Engineering Private Limited V. M/s. Niraj Petrochemicals Limited AIR 1994 AP 33 para-6 it was observed that, prima facie case does not mean the Court should examine the merits of the case closely and come to a conclusion that plaintiff has a case in which he is likely to succeed, as that would prejudice the case on merits. In a given case, it is the bounden duty of the Court to examine in detail with reference to the specific material on record to find out whether prima facie case is made out or not and in whose favour balance of convenience lie and whether the petitioner suffers any irreparable loss if injunction not granted. From this expression, it speaks that prima facie does not mean the Court has to go into the merits for ultimate success; though it is supposed to discuss all the material placed on record. It is with reference to the two expressions supra while discussing the documents and other material placed on record by the parties, Court has to consider for prima facie case not to give finding touching merits for ultimate result to the prejudice of the parties, but for to decide there is a triable issue or not. The other expression placed reliance of this Court is Yashoda Super Speciality Hospitals, Hyderabad V. Yashoda Medicare and Research Centre (P) Ltd., new Delhi 2011(1) ALD 79 where at para No. 16 it was observed that for prima facie case, the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and that on the facts before it there is a probability that the plaintiff being entitled to relief. A combined reading to the three expressions indicate that though the Court can go into the probability of success or not of the plaintiff, it cannot give findings touching the suit merits which prejudice the rights of the parties in the ultimate trial, but to decide existence or not of a serious question to be tried and not a mere triable issue. 8. 8. The other decision placed reliance by the Respondent is N.R. Srinivas V. Madduri Mallareddy 2005(1) ALD 268 , wherein it was observed that in a suit for injunction question of title also can be gone into. No doubt from these expressions, where suit is based on title, title can be incidentally gone into is the sum and substance from the expressions while putting a caution not to touch the merits of final suit claim which prejudice the rights of the parties in the suit claim, though required to consider the entire material as to existence of something more than triable issue and bona fide contention for a serious question to be tried and not of ultimate success. This to say something more than a mere triable issue with bona fide contention is required to make out a prima facie case that is what this Court also earlier answered on the scope in detail scanning the law in C.R.P. No. 76 of 2014 dated 21.10.2014 in Dasari Lakshmi V. Bejjanki Sattireddy. From these propositions placed reliance by both sides where both the parties could not make out title, and the plaintiff able to show their possession, temporary injunction can be granted pending the suit unless it is to held that very suit is not maintainable and where plaintiff came to Court with clean hands in satisfying the three requirements. No doubt subject to security as per Order XXXIX Rule 2(2) C.P.C. and with any further terms as laid down in Balco Employees Union V. Union of India (2002)2 SCC 333 and Ramdaan and Kasinath Samstan supra. 9. Now, the points for consideration are "(i) Whether the impugned order requires interference and if so, with what observations? (ii) To what relief?" POINT No. 1: 10. From above propositions placed on record supra, coming to the facts save those are already referred and inevitably required to repeat if any even, the claim of the plaintiff is that he purchased the plaint schedule property of 132.30 Sq. yards within the boundaries North: Land of Pambala Yadagiri, South: Land of Vendor, East: M.R.O Office compound wall, West: 21' Road, within S. No. 1497 near Taluk Office, Prashant Nagar, Siddipet town under Ex. A-2 dated 24.07.2012 executed by one Mr. Vasala Padma Reddy, Ex. A-1 is the tax receipt regarding the tax payment for the plaint schedule, Exs. yards within the boundaries North: Land of Pambala Yadagiri, South: Land of Vendor, East: M.R.O Office compound wall, West: 21' Road, within S. No. 1497 near Taluk Office, Prashant Nagar, Siddipet town under Ex. A-2 dated 24.07.2012 executed by one Mr. Vasala Padma Reddy, Ex. A-1 is the tax receipt regarding the tax payment for the plaint schedule, Exs. A-5 to A-8 show the pahanis of the years 1985 to 1988 and 1990-91 in relation to the source of title of the vendor of the plaintiff from the entry in the revenue record claimed so and Ex. A-3, A-4 are photos with CD and municipal approved plan for construction. The contention of the defendants/respondents in the counter opposing the temporary injunction before the trial Court in I.A. No. 942 of 2012 in this suit O.S. No. 279 of 2012 is that prior to the present suit filed by the Plaintiff herein, the defendants herein filed O.S. No. 273 of 2012 for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction challenging the present plaintiffs claim of purchase of the plaint schedule property and it is after service of injunction warrant of the ad-interim ex parte injunction obtained, the present suit is filed and the same would not lie. No doubt a perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiff herein against the defendants/respondents 1 and 2 herein O.S. No. 279 of 2012, there is a whisper at para No. 6 about the defendants based on fabricated and sham document filed O.S. No. 273 of 2012 and obtained ad-interim injunction in I.A. No. 910 of 2012 with false boundaries and extents with wrong names of their vendors and under the guise of that ad-interim injunction order ex parte , dated 11.12.2012 they are trying to interfere with the present plaintiffs' possession. In fact instead of filing the present suit, the plaintiff could maintain a counter claim in that suit in O.S. No. 273 of 2012 including application to vacate the injunction or to modify or vary as contemplated by Order XXXIX, Rule 4-C.P.C. with or without seeking counter claim injunction in his favour against that suit O.S. No. 273 of 2012 plaintiffs. However, the plaintiff herein O.S. No. 279 of 2012 instead of maintain the present independent suit when not suppressed the factum of suit O.S. No. 273 of 2012 pending including the ad-interim ex parte injunction order obtained by the defendants herein against the plaintiff herein claiming for the plaint schedule property therein and try to interfere under that guise with present suit schedule property it cannot be allowed to contend by the respondents that plaintiff did not come to Court with clean hands or he suppressed the material facts or the present won't lie. 11. It is important to note that in the counter of the defendants/respondents to the injunction petition at para No. 9 equally in the written statement of the defendants at Para Nos. 9 and 10 they made a mention that they purchased the property in S. No. 1497 of total Ac. 1-03 guntas from Bhoompalli Rajaiah, Rajamallaiah and 2 others and Juwanna Muthaiah and Yadamma and Bhoompally Ramajunam and another respectively in the years 1994 to 1996, under the four transactions of sale. They should have correlated the said vendors title with Exs. P-5 to P-8 pahanis of the years 1985-1988 and also by filing any revenue pahanis in their vendors name prior to the year 1994. It is to show further by filing their title deeds and correlate if relate to present suit schedule if also part of that property and further any revenue record in their favour for acts of possession for the same to say what plaintiff relied cannot be given credence. Importantly and for reasons better known to the respondents in the temporary injunction application, while so contending saying the plaintiffs' vendor Vasala Padma Reddy has no title over any extent of S. No. 1497 and otherwise when such Padma Reddy sold to Mutyala Sridevi under registered sale deed dated 31.08.2007 covered by Ex. B-1, the said Padma Reddy again to sell to the plaintiff has no title; nothing filed to show the respondent's right or possession. Even the memo said to have been issued by Tahsildar marked as Ex. B-2 is saying the title deed No. 712292 issued by M.R.O, Siddipet based on Ex. A-2 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not true and even Ex. B-3 is C.C. of R.O.R certificate. Thus, none of Exs. Even the memo said to have been issued by Tahsildar marked as Ex. B-2 is saying the title deed No. 712292 issued by M.R.O, Siddipet based on Ex. A-2 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not true and even Ex. B-3 is C.C. of R.O.R certificate. Thus, none of Exs. B-1 to B-3 are in favour of the respondents/defendants herein, none other than plaintiffs in O.S. No. 273 of 2012. They did not even file the plaint copy in O.S. No. 273 of 2012 and the ex parte ad-interim injunction order obtained by them in I.A. No. 910 of 2012 to decide for what property that injunction order related no doubt, Ex. B-1 sale deed executed by Vasala Padma Reddy in favour of Mutyala Sridevi also shows the extent of 233.33 Sq. yards equally from Ex. A-2 in favour of the plaintiff executed by said V. Padma Reddy. In fact in support of the case of the plaintiff as referred by the trial Court in the injunction order, particularly at paras 7 and 8, it was an observation that said Padma Reddy filed an affidavit stating that the sale deed in favour of Mutyala Sridevi was not acted upon and re-delivered possession and pursuant to which he executed in favour of the plaintiff the Ex. A-2 sale deed. Even the respondents could not file any affidavit of said Mutyala Sridevi to say that Mutyala Sridevi still in possession of the suit property and with claim of holds title and nothing to convey by said V. Padma Reddy the vendor of said Sridevi as well as the plaintiff. When vendor of the plaintiff explained regarding the earlier alienation though no oral evidence contrary to the documentary evidence, but for to explain is admissible under Sections 91and 92 of Indian Evidence Act, for the plaintiff to claim contra to Ex. B-1 sale deed, when that aspect is pre-mature to decide, for temporary injunction but for to say Exs. A-1 to A-8 including with reference to Ex. B-1 and the affidavit filed by vendor of plaintiff in support of the injunction petition show she executed the sale deed and delivered possession. It is to say plaintiffs made out prima facie case. B-1 sale deed, when that aspect is pre-mature to decide, for temporary injunction but for to say Exs. A-1 to A-8 including with reference to Ex. B-1 and the affidavit filed by vendor of plaintiff in support of the injunction petition show she executed the sale deed and delivered possession. It is to say plaintiffs made out prima facie case. Even regarding balance of convenience and irreparable injury even to say that the defendants are in possession and not the plaintiff or defendants alone got title derived through their so called vendors under four sales of the year 1994 to 1996, there is no scrap of paper filed by the defendants/respondents the balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff equally to hold the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss unless injunction being granted for defendants without filing documents of they got title and possession, cannot oppose plaintiff's claim, saying plaintiff's vendor sold to one Sridevi and that too when not even claiming through Sridevi. In this suit, it is not even sought by any of the parties to club the present suit with O.S. No. 273 of 2012 as that is the proper course if both the suits are undisputedly pending before the same Court, for common evidence and disposal to decide crux of lis and to avoid duplication of evidence. When what is required is prima facie case which is something more than bona fide contention and triable issue to say a serious question to be tried though not required to be established the ultimate chance of success but for a probability and once Mutyala Sridevi could be examined by the plaintiff or plaintiffs vendor V. Padma Reddy also any showing plaintiffs' possession and passing of plaintiffs' title when plaintiffs if could succeed in the suit for that when there is a serious question to be tried and defendants could not show anything regarding their possession or enjoyment muchless title but for disputing when plaintiffs' vendor sold under Ex. A1 to Mutyala Sridevi how the plaintiffs' vendor again sell to the plaintiffs the suit schedule that is not even their case that they got any title muchless possession through said Mutyala Sridevi vendee under Ex. A1 even to dispute the plaintiffs' possession as on the date of suit including with reference to Exs. A1 to Mutyala Sridevi how the plaintiffs' vendor again sell to the plaintiffs the suit schedule that is not even their case that they got any title muchless possession through said Mutyala Sridevi vendee under Ex. A1 even to dispute the plaintiffs' possession as on the date of suit including with reference to Exs. A1 to A3 placed reliance by them, the lower appellate Court is wrong in reversing the temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court: that too while sitting in appeal against the discretion exercised by the trial Court when supported by reasons, merely because another view also possible. 12. It is needless to say the plaintiff is bound to furnish security to make good any loss, in the event of failure to succeed in the suit. As the facts show some equity is there from ex parte injunction order obtained by defendants herein against plaintiff herein in another suit O.S. No. 273 of 2012 and nothing shown of same was vacated and when both claiming for the present suit schedule with constructions by plaintiff and this leads to conflict in enforcement of two orders to avoid the situation and as a primary duty of the Court to protect subject matter of the list with existing status quo as on date of suit instead of retaining the temporary injunction passed by trial Court or allowing to set aside as per the order of the lower appellate Court and from the facts that for even all ingredients satisfied relief is discretionary to say in granting temporary injunction also Court can impose terms; by taken the possession as a custodia legis, entrusted to the plaintiff/revision petitioner to continue pending suit subject to executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- to compensate in the event of non-success by the plaintiff, for any compensation fall for consideration under Section 95 C.P.C. or otherwise. The trial Court can be directed to dispose of both the suit by clubbing and common disposal for effective adjudication of the lis and to avoid duplication of evidence, waste of time of Court and parties to the lis, to give preference in disposal within four months by clubbing by virtue of the order. Accordingly point No. 1 is answered. POINT No. 2: 13. Accordingly point No. 1 is answered. POINT No. 2: 13. In the result, the revision is disposed of by continuing plaintiff-revision petitioner in possession of the plaint schedule property as custodia legis pending disposal of the suit and subject to execution of bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- to compensate in the event of plaintiff's non-success. Trial Court is required to give preferential disposal of the suti by clubbing with O.S. No. 273 of 2012 by this order and atleast within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order. None of the other observations in the revision order and of the lower Courts shall influence mind of trial Court to decide the suits lis but for on own merits. There is no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.