HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCILLANEOUS APPEAL No. 947 OF 2009 DATED 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN Raypudi Seethamma ….Appellant and Pallerla Chandrakala and ors ….Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCILLANEOUS APPEAL No. 947 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. GOPAL REDDY) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, is filed aggrieved by the order dated 30-6-2009 passed in I.A.No.1136 of 2009 in O.S.No. 18 of 2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam. The third respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No. 18 of 2009 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, which consists of a cinema theatre. In the said suit, he also prayed for some other reliefs, which are not the subject matter of the present appeal. In the said suit, the third respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1136 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of an injunction restraining the defendants from causing modifications or alterations to the structures of the petition schedule property and not to allow any third parties over the petition schedule property. Initially, the Court below granted ad-interim injunction on 6-4- 2009. To vacate the said ad-interim injunction order, the appellant/third defendant filed I.A.No. 1231 of 2009. The Court below, by common order dated 30-6-2009 allowed I.A.No. 1136 of 2009 and dismissed IA.No. 1231 of 2009. Aggrieved by the order dated 30-6-2009 insofar as it relates to grant of injunction in I.A.No. 1136 of 2009 directing the defendants not to make any modifications or alterations to the suit schedule structure, the present appeal is filed. We have heard Sri G. Dharma Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the petition schedule property (cinema theatre) is in a dilapidated condition and the appellant herein is the major share holder, she took care of the same to convert into marriage hall, so as to get more benefits, and, therefore, the Court below ought not to have granted injunction restraining her from causing any modifications or alterations so as to convert the same into marriage hall. Admittedly, on passing of the preliminary decree in the suit in O.S.No. 47 of 1974, which was subsequently renumbered as O.S.No. 5 of 1978, vide decree dated 30-9-1978, the partnership firm was dissolved. According to the plaintiff/first respondent, she is entitled to 28 paise share. According to the contesting defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to only 20 paise share, whereas, the case of appellant/third defendant is that she is entitled to 60 paise share in the suit schedule property. All these rival claims can be adjudicated only after full fledged trial. However, in the interest of both the parties, the lower Court allowed I.A.No. 1136 of 2009 and restrained the appellant and respondents 2 to 3 from causing modifications, alterations to the structures of the petition schedule property and creating third party rights over the petition schedule property. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that inasmuch as the petition schedule structure is in dilapidated condition, they intend to convert the same into marriage hall and therefore, they made an application before the competent authority for according necessary permission, and the same is said to have been pending before the Municipality and the Joint Collector. It is noteworthy that against the wish of any of the sharers, the sharer in management of the schedule property cannot put the property for any purpose other than for which it is intended. In the present matter also, in order to change the petition schedule structure into marriage hall, the consent of the remaining shareholders and as well as sanction of law is necessary. It is needless to say that without the permission of the competent authorities, change or modification of the petition schedule property into marriage hall cannot be allowed and it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to hear all the sharers of the petition property before acceding or refusing the requisite permission to convert the theatre into marriage hall. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Court below is an equitable order and does not call for any interference. Even if the appellant/third defendant is a major share holder in the petition schedule property, but, we cannot deprive the rights of the first respondent/plaintiff by changing the use of the petition schedule property (cinema theatre) into marriage hall by allowing third parties to run the same. We do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below calling any interference. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and request made by both the parties, we direct the Court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, if both sides of the parties cooperate for such disposal, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this appeal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ------------------------------ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Dated 18th September, 2009. Msnr.