HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.Nos.408, 409 and 410 of 2011 Date: 20-06-2011 C.M.A.No.408 of 2011: Between: Kanthilal …….. Appellant And Deep Chand and others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.Nos.408, 409 and 410 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per KSAR, J) These Appeals are filed against the common order, dated 19- 04-2011 passed in I.A.Nos.535, 533 and 534 of 2010 in O.S.No.74 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, respectively. The appellant herein is the first defendant-landlord and the respondents are the plaintiffs-tenants in O.S.No.74 of 2010. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.74 of 2010 for specific performance of oral agreement of sale and also claiming that they are the tenants of the suit schedule property. Whereas the defendants filed the suit in O.S.No.157 of 2010 against the plaintiffs for eviction. The plaintiffs filed three petitions in I.A.Nos.535, 533 and 534 of 2010 in O.S.No.74 of 2010 seeking the reliefs against the owner. I.A.No.535 of 2010 was filed for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from entertaining any transactions or documents with regard to the suit schedule property, I.A.No.533 of 2010 was filed for prohibitory injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and I.A.No.534 of 2010 was filed for mandatory injunction to restore the electricity connection of the suit schedule property. 3. The lower Court, while considering the arguments of both parties, partly allowed the petitions and granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the first defendant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly urged that granting of injunction against the appellant is without any valid reason and no injunction can be granted against the appellant and the suit for specific performance of oral agreement of sale is not maintainable and the appellant has already filed the suit in O.S.No.842 of 2010 seeking eviction of the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and the same is pending and that the trial Court erred in directing the appellant to restore the electricity connection though the plaintiffs failed to pay the electricity charges and therefore, the orders passed by the trial Court in the aforesaid applications are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the orders of the trial Court, mainly urged that the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above three I.As when their rights are deprived by the defendants and the trial Court rightly granted the reliefs and there are grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the orders of the trial Court in the aforesaid three applications are sustainable? 7. Admittedly the petitioners in the aforesaid three applications are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants of the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the suit schedule property through the oral agreement of sale prior to the filing of the suit in O.S.No.74 of 2010. When the said suit is pending, the defendants abruptly disconnected the electricity supply and water supply and were making efforts to alienate and trespass the suit schedule property, thereby the plaintiffs were constrained to file the said three applications. 8. The admitted facts are that the petitioners were inducted in the suit schedule property as tenants. A Commissioner was also appointed during the pendency of the enquiry of the petitions and according to his report, the water supply and electricity supply are not provided to the plaintiffs and that there are some obstructions on the way to the tenants’ floor. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. A criminal case was also filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants and it was ended in acquittal. Filing the suit by the defendants in O.S.No.157 of 2010 for eviction of the plaintiffs shows that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Unless the plaintiffs are evicted by due process of law, the defendants cannot get possession of the property. In view of the positive finding of the Commissioner that there is disconnection of water supply and electricity supply, there is every reason for the plaintiffs in filing the petitions for the restoration of the amenities i.e., electricity supply and water supply. The trial Court also came to the same conclusion by allowing the petitions and directed the defendants to restore the electricity connection and water supply. 9. In the latter part of the impugned order, the trial Court mainly observed that if the defendants fail to provide restoration of the electricity connection and water supply, it is open to the plaintiffs to take the order of the Court to the electricity department for restoration of the electricity connection. In view of the findings of the trial Court, while disposing of the Applications in I.A.Nos.535, 533 and 534 of 2010 in O.S.No.74 of 2010, we see no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the orders of the trial Court, while grating the relief in the aforesaid three I.As, are sustainable. Hence, there are no merits in these appeals and they are liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 20-06-2011 YCR