THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.474 of 2007 and Transfer C.M.A.No.1390 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The C.M.A. and the transfer C.M.A. arise out of a common order passed by the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.M.A.No.474 of 2007. The appellants filed O.S.No.3338 of 2004 against the respondents herein for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of Ac.2.38 cents of land in R.S.No.669/2 of Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal. The 1st respondent on the other hand filed O.S.No.3339 of 2004 in the same Court for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of not only the land in R.S.No.669/2, but also other properties bearing House Nos.9-81 and 9-27 of Paritala Village. Both of them filed applications for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., being I.A.Nos.1944 and 1947 of 2004 respectively. Through a common order, dated 26.10.2006, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.1944 of 2004 and allowed I.A.No.1947 of 2004. The appellants filed C.M.A.No.474 of 2007 before this Court against the order in I.A.No.1947 of 2004. Since the value in the other suit was less, the C.M.A. was filed before the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On an application filed by the appellants, it was transferred to this Court and renumbered as transfer C.M.A.No.139 of 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. In both the suits, there is a common item of property. Since the claims are made in respect of the same property, the trial Court heard the I.As. together. This is one of the rare cases, where oral evidence was recorded at the interlocutory stage and extensive documentary evidence was taken on record. On behalf of the appellants, first appellant deposed as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.29 were filed. A prima facie case was found in favour of the respondents and an order of temporary injunction was granted in their favour. This, naturally would lead to rejection of the claim of the appellants. This Court does not find any serious factual or legal error in the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the suits are at an advanced stage of disposal. It is axiomatic that any observations made by the Court, while dealing with the interlocutory applications, shall not be treated as final, much less do they have any bearing upon the trial of the suit. Hence, the C.M.A. and the Transfer C.M.A are dismissed, however by directing that the trial Court shall not treat any observations made in the orders passed in the I.As. as conclusive and the suits shall be decided on their own merits uninfluenced by such observations. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 06.07.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.474 of 2007 and Transfer C.M.A.No.1390 of 2008 Date: 06.07.2010 JSU