THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.704 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 30-06-2011, in I.A.No.1133 of 2010 in O.S.No.54 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the application filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 8 from withdrawing the compensation amounts deposited by the respondent No.9 as mentioned in Schedule-B of the petitions in O.P.Nos.693/84, 42/85, 618/85 and 113/2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, was dismissed. 2. The appellants herein (plaintiffs) filed the suit in O.S.No.54 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, claiming share in respect of the land acquired by the Government and thereafter compensation has been determined in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. During trial, the appellants herein filed the above application to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 8 from withdrawing the compensation amounts deposited by the respondent No.9. 3. The trial Court after considering the material on record, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners (appellants herein) have not made out a prima facie case, that if the plaintiffs succeed in the suit, they are entitled for a share as per the decree that may be passed and injunction cannot be granted if it can be compensated in terms of money. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants (plaintiffs) contended that the appellants are claiming share in the compensation amount also along with share in other immovable properties and to safeguard the interest of the plaintiffs, the extent of their share in the compensation amount may not be released to the respondents (defendants) and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (defendants) contended that one of the conditions for grant of injunction is that when irreparable loss can be compensated in terms of money, injunction cannot be granted, that to what extent the appellants are entitled to share has to be determined and ultimately, if appellants succeed in the suit, they can as well get a share with regard to money, which can be executable and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Whether the appellants (plaintiffs) are entitled for a share in the property or not is a matter to be decided during the trial of the case. The above application was filed not to disburse the amount in respect of the land acquired in which the appellants are claiming a share. But, prima facie the appellants have not participated in Section 18 proceedings before the competent Civil Court with regard to determination of compensation amount. Secondly, even if the appellants succeed in the suit, the trial Court can pass a decree to the extent of their share and which can be executable against the respondents (defendants) who are having other properties. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondents have no other properties so as to direct them to furnish security for the amount that may be released in their favour. Therefore, three conditions which are required for grant of injunction have not been satisfied. Injunction can be granted only when the irreparable loss cannot be compensated in terms of money. In this case, no irreparable loss would be caused to the appellants even if injunction is not granted for the reason that the appellants can execute the decree against the respondents who are having substantial properties. Even according to the appellants, they are having 8/9th share in the properties. Therefore, the trial Court after considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 12-08-2011 Hsd