HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.352 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order in I.A. No.12 of 2010 in O.S. No.2 of 2010 dated 16-04-2010 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Anantapur. 2. Appellant, who is defendant No.3, is respondent and the respondents, who are plaintiffs, are petitioners in the impugned application before the trial Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 4. Plaintiffs filed the impugned application under Order – XXXIX Rules - 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction in their favour and against defendant No.3 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over M/s. Sri Darmamba Communications, where the Master System Operation is installed and carried on the business activity of Master System Operation pending disposal of the suit. 5. Plaintiffs filed the main suit seeking declaration that the assignment made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 over and above his 16% share is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 have no right to participate in the affairs of plaintiff No.1 firm and to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, their men and agents restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of over M/s. Sree Dharmamba Communications where the Master System Operation is installed and carried on the business activity of Master System Operation. 6. The trial Court having heard the learned counsel on either side, perusing Exs.A-1 to A-40 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 produced by the either side and after an elaborate consideration of the matter, allowed the application granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No.3 restraining him from interfering with the business activities of Sri Dharmamba Communications by the plaintiffs pending disposal of the suit directing them (plaintiffs) to file accounts in the Court by 15th of every month and for April and May, 2010, to submit the accounts on or before 15th of June, 2010 and thereafter by 15th of every succeeding month and they are further directed to deposit the share of profits equivalent to 16% into the Court and defendant No.3 is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security till final disposal of the suit. 7. Now, learned counsel for defendant No.3, appellant, contends that by the impugned order, the trial Court directed the plaintiffs to submit accounts by 15th of every succeeding month and also directed them to deposit 16% share in the profits into the Court permitting defendant No.3 to withdraw the same without furnishing any security till final disposal of the suit, but they are not complying with the said order, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs is not disputing this position. 8. A perusal of the record shows that this appeal was filed in April, 2010 and there is no interim order. On 30-04-2010 itself, when the stay petition came up for hearing, this Court decided to hear the appeal itself and without passing any interim order, posted the appeal for final hearing. Thus, it is clear that there is no interim order staying the impugned order and in spite of that plaintiffs have not chosen to comply with the conditions of the impugned order. 9. In the circumstances, without going to the merits of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order in I.A. No.12 of 2010 in O.S. No.2 of 2010 dated 16-04-2010 is set aside. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J October 20, 2010. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV