THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.362 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant is the plaintiff who filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia assailing the orders dated 24-2-2010 passed in I.A.No.2402 of 2009 in O.S.No.155 of 2009, on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad purported to have filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure where he sought for interim injunction as against the alienation, development or changing the nature of the suit schedule property. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in a suit which has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff for cancellation of the document in question dated 1-8-2009 which is a registered Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A, the application has been filed alleging that the respondent is trying to alienate the property and inducting the 3rd parties. After contest, the Court below did not find favour with the appellant’s request and dismissed the application. Hence the appeal. During the course of the arguments, it has been pointed out that in fact initially at the time of filing of the suit in the very same application the Court below has granted status quo as per orders dated 1-10-2009, which has been ultimately vacated by the final orders passed on 24-2-2010. Further, the counsel for the appellant pointed out that immediately on the next date of vacation of the order ie., on 25-2-2010, the respondent has already sold away by way of registered sale deed in favour of 3rd party and they are trying to develop. The learned counsel for the respondents no doubt admits that there is alienation, but however there is no question of giving to any development. Having heard the counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, especially, in view of the fact that any alienations or changes are made by the respondent is always subject to the Lis Pendency and the appellant is also protected under the principles of Lis Pendency under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of the above, there cannot be any justification to the appellants seeking injunction except to direct the Court below to dispose of the main suit itself to put an end to the Lis between the parties. We do not find any merits in the above appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the main suit itself within a period three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dt:02-07-2010 Grk