THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.327 of 2011 ORDER: The appellant filed O.S.No.88 of 2010 against the respondents in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 03-03-2005. The agreement of sale was executed by Sri Koteswara Rao, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5. He made a reference to the proceedings in O.S.No.45 of 2005 in which eviction of the appellant was sought, and the decree passed therein. He has also filed I.A.No.194 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. Respondents opposed the I.A., by filing counter. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 06-04-2011. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Additional Advocate- General for the appellant, and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. The fact that the appellant was in possession of the suit schedule property was not in dispute, since the respondents themselves filed E.P.No.123 of 2008 for his eviction on the basis of the decree passed in O.S.No.45 of 2005. It is also not in dispute that the decree was yet to be executed. Incidentally, it is the same Court, which passed the decree against the appellant. The trial Court ought to have dealt with both the matters together to avoid conflicting views. There was absolutely no justification in denying the relief of temporary injunction, even when the appellant was in possession of the property. The trial Court has dealt with the matter so extensively, that virtually nothing is left to be decided in the suit. An order running into 23 pages was passed, expressing the final view upon so many aspects. Such a course is impermissible. This Court desists from dealing with the matter in detail, lest, the observations be treated as the final pronouncement on the controversy of one party or the other. Hence, the C.M.A is allowed, and the order under appeal is set aside. As a result, I.A.No.194 of 2010 shall stand allowed, and there shall be temporary injunction in favour of the appellant, in respect of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the trial has already commenced. The trial Court shall take up the matter on urgent basis, and endeavour to dispose of the same by the end of March, 2012. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04-11-2011. KO