IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANESOU APPEAL No.1158 OF 2009 Between: Haji Bee, W/o. Mohammed Abdullah .....APPELLANT AND Shaik Tajuddin, S/o. Late Shaik Mohiuddin and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANESOU APPEAL No.1158 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 12.10.2009, in I.A.No.230 of 2009 in O.S.No.425 of 2002, on the file of X Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Tract Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, temporary injunction was granted restraining the appellant and respondent No.1 herein from changing the nature of the suit schedule property of house No.11-2-862 to 869, admeasuring 260 square yards, situated at Habeebnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad, and from making any construction, pending disposal of the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order does not contain any reasons and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the suit is ripe for trial; that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed; that it is coming up for defendants evidence and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 4. Any order passed by the Court should contain reasons, because right to reason is an indispensible part of sound judicial system. As seen from the impugned order, no such reason is assigned. In a case for grant or refusal of injunction, it is governed by three well established principles viz., (1) prima facie title, (2) balance of convenience i.e., if the injunction is not granted, it will put to grave inconvenience to respondent No.1/plaintiff than the inconvenience to the appellant/defendant and (3) irreparable injury cannot be estimated in terms of damages. These three aspects have not been considered by the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. But, however, to preserve the property as it is, in view of the fact that the suit is ripe for trial, no further constructions by any one of the parties shall be made till the disposal of the suit. However, when the appeal is pending, some pits were dug in the suit schedule land. In order to cause no inconvenience, those pits can be filled up. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For any reason, if the trial Court is unable to dispose of the suit, it can as well seek extension of time for disposal of the suit, in view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2002. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 15, 2010 MD/YVL