( 1 ) BOTH the revisions are filed challenging the common order and decree dated 25-9-2002 passed by the Court of Principal district Judge, Rangareddy District in c. M. A. Nos. 95 and 96 of 2002. By the impugned order, the lower appellate court confirmed the common order and decree dated 1-7-2002 passed by the Court of principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad east and North in I. A. No. 437/2002 in o. S. No. 159/2002 and in LA. No. 438/2002 in o. S. No. 160/2002 in rejecting to grant the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, and thereby dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders of dismissal passed by the courts below in the interlocutory applications, the plaintiffs in the suit filed these revision petitions.

( 2 ) SINCE the issue involved in both the revision petitions is similar and the respondents are common and also since the suit schedule property involved in both the revisions is situated in the same survey number, and also as the court below passed common order, I am disposing of both the revisions by this common order.

( 3 ) THE brief facts are that the plaintiffs filed the suits in O. S. Nos. 159 and 160 of 2002 for permanent injunctions. Along with the suits, they filed I. A. Nos. 437 and 438 of 2002 in the respective suits for grant of temporary injunction. Initially, the trial court granted ex parte status quo on 14-2-2002 and the said order was vacated at the instance of the 1st defendant, who is the contesting defendant in both the suits. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs filed appeals before the lower appellate court and the appeals were dismissed and hence the present revisions.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs - revision petitioners Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, contended that originally the plaintiffs filed o. S. No. 122/2001 against their vendors, (who are defendants 2 and 3 in the present suits), for the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 7-1-1999 and the said suit was decreed and in pursuance of the same, a regular sale deed was executed in their favour on 9-1-2002. He further stated that the 1st defendant in the present suits, filed a suit in O. S. No. 107/2001 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 24-9-2002 (sic.) and for possession against the present defendants 2 and 3, in respect of the very same suit schedule property and the said suit is pending. He further submitted that the plaintiffs having succeeded in their suits, have obtained a regular sale deed and they were in possession of the suit schedule property and since their vendors who are defendants 2 and 3 and the 1st defendant who was also alleged to have entered into agreement of sale with their vendors, are interfering with their possession, they filed the present suits and since they are actually in possession, the plaintiffs are entitled to temporary injunction pending their suits. With these submissions, he sought for setting aside the impugned common order.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st defendant/1st respondent in both the revisions Sri Vilas afzal Purkar raised two contentions. Firstly he contended that under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 of C. P. C. , which is incorporated by way of Amendment Act 46 of 1999, unless the orders passed by the court below are in the nature of disposing of the main suit itself, the High Court cannot interfere with the interlocutory orders passed by the courts below under the revisional jurisdiction. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in D. Kyathappa v. K. L. Siddaramappa1 secondly he contended that the courts below have thoroughly considered the entire material on record and gave a categorical finding that the plaintiffs have approached the court with unclean hands and that the decree obtained by them for specific performance in O. S. No. 122/2001 was collusive. With these submissions, he sought for dismis