THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A. No. 543 of 2005 Order: This appeal is directed against the orders dated 30.04.2005 passed in I.A. No. 93 of 2004 in O.S. No.9 of 2004 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the appellant herein is the first defendant in the original suit. The plaintiff company filed the suit for perpetual injunction and along with the suit they also filed I.A. No.93 of 2004 seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating, transferring, mortgaging, creating any charge or lien on the petition schedule properties to third parties till the disposal of the suit. The plaintiff company is dealing in purchase of lands and converting the same into house sites and selling the same. It is the case of the plaintiff company that they acquired the petition schedule properties by entering into agreements with the landlords and pattedars by paying sale consideration and they intended to obtain registered GPAs in the name of the plaintiff company represented by its director, the first defendant. In some cases in the GPAs the name of the first defendant alone was mentioned instead of mentioning the name of the company as represented by its director N. Gopal Niadu (first defendant). It is the further case of the plaintiff that the first defendant was one of the directors and subsequently the first defendant resigned from the directorship of the plaintiff company on 28.11.2000. It is alleged that three years after retirement, the first defendant, taking advantage of some registered power of attorneys in his name, executed about ten sale deeds in the name of his kith and kin though the lands belonged to the plaintiff’s company. Alleging that the first defendant is also trying to alienate the petition schedule properties to third parties they filed the suit and in the meanwhile for grant of interim injunction against the first defendant restraining him from alienating petition A to D schedule properties. The case of the first defendant is that he is the joint owner and possessor of the properties of the plaintiff’s company and that he issued public notice in Eenadu and Deccan Chronicle on 11.03.2004 and 14.03.2004. His case is that he is continuing as director of the company. It is also his case that the GPAs were executed by the owners of the lands in his favour in his individual capacity but not in the capacity of the director of the plaintiff’s company. The lower Court, considering the several documents and rival contentions, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s company is entitled for temporary injunction and, accordingly, allowed the petition. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. Heard both the counsel. It is not in dispute that the first defendant was one of the directors of the plaintiff’s company. Whether he has resigned to the post of Director or not and whether the lands were purchased in his individual capacity or on behalf of the plaintiff’s company have to be decided while disposing of the main suit. However, since the Court below, having considered several documents filed by the plaintiff’s company, has passed the impugned order, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The CMA is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 17.06.2011 Nsr