THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1037 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 09.08.2011 passed in I.A. No. 1186 of 2011 in O.S. No. 63 of 2011 by the Principal District Judge, Khammam, granting temporary injunction restraining the appellants and other defendants in the suit from creating third party interest and changing the physical features and vacant nature of the petition schedule property until further orders. The counsel for the appellants, defendants 3 and 4 in the suit, submits that the order of the trial Court granting ex parte injunction is contrary to the express provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 to 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dispensed with, which is irregular. Relying upon the order passed by the Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition filed by some third parties claiming right in the subject property, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the apex Court, he tried to impress upon the Court that the subject property, which was vested with the Government, has been allotted to the appellants Board, and thus the ex parte interim injunction granted by the Court below cannot be sustained. He also brought to the notice of the Court that some other suits connected to the subject matter of the present suit are filed before the I Additional District Judge, Khammam, and they are pending. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2- plaintiffs mainly contends that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. and others[1]. He further contends that the scope of the appeal is very limited and as counter-affidavits were already filed before the Court below and the present interlocutory application is at the stage of hearing, it is not proper for this Court to go into the merits of the matter in this appeal. The counsel for the appellants also admitted that the present interlocutory application is posted for hearing before the Court below. Since the present interlocutory application itself is coming up for hearing, we feel it not proper to go into the merits of the matter in this appeal and we deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal as under: “The appellants are at liberty to raise all the issues/objections before the Court below. The Court below shall take them into consideration and dispose of the present interlocutory application within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties.” With the above, the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No order as costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 10th November, 2011 IBL [1] AIR 2004 AP 310