THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.Nos. 4721 to 4730 of 2003 and 65,67,69,110 and 139 of 2004 Common judgment: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Since all these appeals arise out of the common order passed in the Interlocutory Applications filed in O.S.No.15 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant, respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 in C.M.A.No.4722 of 2004 are the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 5 respectively, in O.S.No.15 of 2002 filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. For convenience, the parties in C.M.A.No.4722 of 2003 have been referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. C.M.A.Nos.4721, 4726 of 2003 and 67 of 2004 are filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and third party-M/s.Paigah Holdings respectively, against the order, dated 24.11.2003 passed in I.A.No.168 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 4. C.M.A.Nos.4722, 4727 of 2003 and 69 of 2004 are filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and third party-M/s.Paigah Holdings respectively, against the order, dated 24.11.2003 passed in I.A.No.170 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002. 5. C.M.A.Nos.4723, 4728 of 2003 and 110 of 2004 are filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and third party-M/s.Paigah Holdings respectively, against the order, dated 24.11.2003 passed in I.A.No.1839 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002. 6. C.M.A.Nos.4724, 4729 of 2003 and 65 of 2004 are filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and third party-M/s.Paigah Holdings respectively, against the order, dated 24.11.2003 passed in I.A.No.1840 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002. 7. C.M.A.Nos.4725, 4730 of 2003 and 139 of 2004 are filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and third party-M/s.Paigah Holdings respectively, against the order, dated 24.11.2003 passed in I.A.No.170 of 2002 in O.S.No.15 of 2002. 8. In O.S.No.15 of 2002, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.168, 169 and 170 of 2002 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 94(e) and 150 CPC read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and representatives from starting or carrying out any commercial enterprises, such as function hall, or the like in the schedule property, whereas defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed I.A.Nos.1839 and 1840 of 2002 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC seeking to grant interim injunction restraining the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1,2 and 5 from either demolishing in part or in full or changing the nature of the suit schedule property and they also filed I.A.No.1841 of 2002 against the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1,2 and 5 seeking to appoint an Advocate-Receiver to take possession of the suit schedule property and manage the same by rendering accounts. Defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.334 of 2002 against the plaintiff and defendant No.1 under Order XIX Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to direct the plaintiff to be present before the Court for the purpose of cross-examination. The trial Court clubbed all these I.As and by the common order impugned, dismissed I.A.Nos.169 and 334 of 2002 and allowed I.A.Nos.168, 170, 1839, 1840 and 1841 of 2002 restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from alienating, hiring, leasing or mortgaging any part of the suit schedule property or changing its nature by making any constructions or alterations during pendency of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed. 9. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff and defendant Nos.3,4 and 5 are the sons of Lateefunnisa Begum and defendant No.2 is the son of Nazeerunnisa Begum, defendant No.1 herein. Said Lateefunnisa Begum and Nazeerunnisa Begum are sisters and as per the family arrangement arrived at between the family members on 12.07.1996, both of them were entitled to the suit schedule property equally, i.e., 50% each. Upon the demise of Lateefunnisa Begum, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3,4 and 5 have succeeded to her undivided share in the suit schedule property. The material on record discloses that said Lateefunnisa Begum alienated her share in the suit schedule property in favour of Wood and Construction Enterprises, a partnership firm, which according to the plaintiff belongs to his family members. Thereafter, the said Wood and Construction Enterprises and the first defendant together leased out the suit schedule property to Paigah Property Developers to run it as a function hall. Defendant No.2, the son of defendant No.1, is residing in one of the portions of the suit schedule property permissively through his mother with the status as partner of Paigah Property Developers. Due to disputes between the partners, the firm of Paigah Property Developers was dissolved. The plaintiff states that himself and defendant Nos.1,3,4 and 5 are entitled to 50% share in the suit schedule property, while defendant No.1 is entitled to 50% share, but defendant No.2 is claiming the suit schedule property not only through his mother but also as erstwhile partner of the dissolved firm. Suit S.No.15 of 2001 is filed for partition and separate possession. 10. Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1, Sri G.M.Mohiuddin, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff, Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/defendant No.2, Sri S.R.Ashok, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel for M/s.Paigah Holdings, the appellant in C.M.A.Nos.65,67,69,110 and 139 of 2004 and Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 4. 11. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 represented that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and her Legal Representatives are brought on record. 12. The learned counsel for all the parties argued the matter at length. Since the suit is of the year 2002 and in view of the fact that the suit schedule property is not being used because of the interim injunction granted by the Court below, in order to see that the suit schedule property, which consists of a function hall etc., shall not be wasted, this Court suggested for amicable interim arrangement between the parties pending the suit. After mutual consultation between the parties, Sri S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel representing Sri Y. Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel for M/s.Paigah Holdings, represented before this Court that his client has agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- every year to the credit of O.S.No.15 of 2002 for running the function hall, through defendant No.2. 13. In view of the aforesaid representation made by the learned senior counsel as regards the internal arrangement between the parties, which is being agreed by all the sides, without going into the merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant-M/s.Paigah Holdings in C.M.A.Nos.65,67,69,110 and 139 of 2004 to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-every year to the credit of O.S.No.15 of 2002 on or before 31st January through defendant No.2 as it is not a party to the suit. It is made clear that the first deposit shall be made on or before 31.01.2011. The said amount shall be kept in fixed deposit and the same is initially treated as the share of the plaintiff. However, the order with regard to entitlement of the said amount shall be passed by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. This arrangement made shall not have any influence on the merits of the suit. Further, it is made clear that since defendant No.2 is residing in one of the portions of the suit schedule property, this internal arrangement shall not be made applicable to the said portion. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Accordingly, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and the impugned common order is set aside. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:08.10.2010. SJ