THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 473 of 2011 Oral Judgment: (Per NVR,J) The appellants, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 1 of 2011 on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam, have filed this C.M.A. aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2011, passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2011. By the said order, the learned District Judge, while ordering notice to respondent Nos. 3 to 7, 9 and 10, and granting time to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the petition, appellants herein, to file counter till 09.05.2011, passed orders of interim injunction restraining respondent Nos. 1 to 10 from interfering with the suit schedule property either by demolishing the building or altering its physical features. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is barred by limitation. He further submitted the appellants have already sold the suit schedule property to defendant Nos. 6 to 10, and they have nothing to do with the suit schedule property, and the Court below having found the same, committed a grave error in granting interim injunction against them. The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that the appellants-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have already filed their counter to the I.A. in the suit, and the matter is coming up for hearing on 13.07.2011, and as such, no interference is called for with the order under appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs and perused the order under appeal. The Court below considering the fact that there is an agreement of sale in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs, felt that if the structures existing in the land are demolished, it would cause irreparable loss to them, and with a view to protect the interest of both the appellants- defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondents-plaintiffs, passed the order under appeal, restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 10 from interfering with the suit schedule property either by demolishing the building or altering the physical features of the suit schedule property, which is in the nature of order of status quo. Since the order under appeal protected the interests of both the appellants-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondents-plaintiffs, and as the injunction application itself is said to be coming up for hearing before the Court below on 13.07.2011, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the order under appeal. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal, and accordingly dismiss the appeal. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 14th June, 2011 IBL