THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.NO.47 OF 2011 JUDGMENT(Per NRLN,,J) The appeal is filed against the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.564 of 2008 in O.S.No.182 of 2008. 02. The suit was one filed for a declaration of title of the plaintiffs and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment; for a further declaration that proceedings in A.T.C.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the Special Officer, Andhra Tenancy Act, Anakapalli and consequential orders passed therein are collusive, void and without jurisdiction; and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding in any manner in pursuance of the orders passed in that A.T.C. 03. Pending disposal of the said suit, I.A.No.564 of 2008 was filed for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with E.P.No.7 of 1999 in A.T.C No. 3 of 1998, which was granted by the court below. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 04. The substance of the claim of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners of the suit schedule property, which belonged to their ancestors and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Originally, it was a coconut garden, which was converted into non-agricultural land and divided into plots and some of the plots were also sold. Defendant No.3 is the mother-in-law of Advocate for Defendant No.1 by name P.S.Kumar and Defendant No.1 is his maternal uncle; Defendants Nos.4 and 5 are the sons of Defendant No.1. A fictitious agreement of sale dated 09.07.1953 was created at the instance of Defendant Nos.1 and 3 as if executed by 2nd defendant in favour of Defendant No.1. Basing on such document, 1st defendant filed A.T.C No.3/1998 against one Kotni Ramaswamy and obtained collusive orders and thereafter filed E.P.No.7 of 1999 for delivery of it and no delivery has been taken place, but the record was manipulated as if there was a delivery of property, which is not yet recorded. The plaintiffs also filed E.A.No.32 of 1999 not to record the delivery. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff also filed L.G.C.No.22 of 1999 and it was initially allowed but in W.P.No.21314 of 2002 the said order was set aside by this Court since the order of the Tribunal cannot be set aside by the Land Grabbing Court. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the plaintiffs pleaded that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. 05. The respondents denied most of the allegations in the plaint and the collusiveness of the transaction. Further, the right of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property is also disputed. The claim of the plaintiffs that they have perfected title by adverse possession is also disputed. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property was allotted to the 2nd defendant and he is the owner of the property. This present litigation is engineered by some of the advocates representing the plaintiffs. Added to that, no injunction can be granted with regard to execution of a lawful decree and at any rate the findings in the Land Grabbing Case shows that the plaintiffs have no possession and the relief of possession was claimed. Therefore, they pleaded for dismissal of the application. 06. On behalf of the petitioners, Ex.P.1 to P.235 were marked and after considering the same, the injunction was granted by the Court below. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of the injunction granted by the Court below is legal and sustainable? POINT:- 07. Though a legal contention was raised as to whether an injunction can be granted with regard to execution of a lawful decree or not, for the purpose of the decision we are taking, it is not very much necessary. It is now fairly well settled that while the Court considers in an application for temporary interim injunction, the essential thing is prima facie case, balance of convenience and the comparative hardship. It is also now fairly well settled the order of the Court should refer to the documents relied upon and find out the relevancy and the reasons for coming to a conclusion. Unfortunately, in this case, the learned judge having extracted the pleadings on both sides, in a single para No.12 reiterated the contention of the plaintiffs and granted injunction, which is not at all appreciable. While serious challenge was made with regard to the nature of the transaction, fraud and collusion are pleaded, it is necessary for the court at least to express an opinion about the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. Merely because, fraud and collusion were pleaded, it cannot be taken as established. If the learned Judge is to feel that these are factors to be decided in the suit, then there should also be reasons to be mentioned as to why and how the injunction is to be granted to the plaintiffs. Further more, when a serious objection has been raised about the right of obtaining injunction to stop the proceedings in execution, no discussion was made on this aspect. Further more, the relief prayed in the earlier Land Grabbing Case is also not considered. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be fair for us to express anything about the merits or demerits of the case since the order of the court below suffers from serious infirmities and there are absolutely no reasons given for granting of the injunction. 08. Therefore, the order of the Court below is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court to decide afresh keeping in view of the settled principles for considering the relief of injunction and dispose of the matter within four (4) months. Parties are directed to maintain status quo. However, this order will not preclude the proceedings in E.A.No.32 of 1999 which was pending before the Tenancy Tribunal to be proceeded with. No costs. Accordingly, with the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J 18TH JULY,2012 TSNR _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J