THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1194 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, allowing I.A. No. 238 of 2011 in O.S. No. 5 of 2011 ﬁled by the respondent herein, plaintiﬀ in the suit, granting interim injunction restraining the appellants 1 to 4 herein from alienating the schedule properties in favour of the appellants 5 and 6 or any third party pending disposal of the suit. Heard the counsel for both parties and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. The suit is ﬁled by the respondent for speciﬁc performance of sale dated 02.08.2008, said to have been entered into between her and the appellants 1 to 4. Contending that the appellants, having entered into the suit agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to her and having received part of sale consideration from her, refused to perform their part of the contract, in spite of her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, and on the other hand they are trying to alienate the property in favour of the appellants 5 and 6, the respondent-plaintiﬀ ﬁled the present application, seeking temporary injunction restraining the appellants 1 to 4 from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of the appellants 5 and 6 or any third parties, pending disposal of the suit. The appellants resisted the application, by ﬁling counters. The court below, having considered the stand of the parties and having regard to the fact that the appellants 1 to 4 have entered into agreement of sale with the appellants 5 and 6, who in turn intended to alienate the suit schedule property, and in the event of any such alienation, there would be multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the respondent-plaintiﬀ, held that the interest of the respondent-plaintiﬀ be protected during disposal of the suit, as prima facie case lies in her favour. Having held so, the Court below allowed the application of the respondent-plaintiﬀ, by the order under appeal, granting interim injunction as prayed for, which, we opine, is just and proper and cannot be found fault with. We see no reason to interfere with such a reasoned order. At this stage, the counsel for the appellants submits that as per the plaint schedule, the extent of suit property is Ac.41.05 cents in Sy.Nos.507 to 520, spread in 119 plots in the total extent of Ac.125.00, situated at Ponnada Revenue Village and Gram Panchayat, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. Though the extent of suit property is only Ac.41.05 cents, in the plaint schedule, the boundaries were furnished for the entire extent of Ac.125.00 cents, and in view of the same and as the decree passed by the Court below is not clear as to the extent of suit property, there would be some misconstruction that injunction was granted for the entire extent of Ac.125.00 cents, though suit property is only Ac.41.05 cents. He, therefore, submits that a clariﬁcation in that regard is necessary and the Court below may also be directed to see that the decree reﬂects the extent of suit schedule property, for which the respondent-plaintiff reported no objection. In the circumstances, we clarify that the interim injunction granted by the Court below, by the order under appeal, is only in respect of Ac.41.05 cents covered by Sy.Nos.507 to 520 situated at Ponnada Revenue Village and Gram Panchayat, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. The Court below is also directed to incorporate the extent of suit schedule property in the decree dated 05.09.2011 passed in I.A. No. 238 of 2011 in O.S. No. 5 of 2011. With the above clariﬁcation and direction, the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 3rd November, 2011 IBL