THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.274 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Heard Sri S.Ravi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri Damodar Mondra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The appellants are the defendants in the Court below, who by way of this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeks to assail the order in I.A.No.840 of 2009 in O.S.No.260 of 2009, dated 29-9- 2009, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District allowing an application filed by the respondent Society, the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia seeking interim injunction restraining the appellants from alienating, transferring or changing the nature of suit schedule property, pending disposal of the main suit. Briefly, the facts of the case are, that, in the suit filed by the respondent-society, it sought for declaration that it is the absolute owner of the suit land, which consists of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.23 situated at Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and for delivery of vacant possession thereof. The case of the plaintiff-society rests on the main allegation that it had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed, dated 2-5-2001 from one A.K.Kamdar and since then it has been in possession and enjoyment. However, the appellants who were claiming to be the owners to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts of land in Sy.No.23 under four registered sale deeds dated 29-4-2002, tried to trespass into the schedule property. Further, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.389 of 2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein a plea was raised by the appellants referring to G.O.Ms.No.1859, dated 31-10-2005 for regularizing their land on payment of fee, and though, the entire case of the appellants is not correct, yet, the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for injunction was dismissed and appeal in CMA.No.90 of 2006 was disposed of. That apart, appellants filed O.S.No.2146/2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District wherein they obtained interim injunction. Thus, the respondent-plaintiff in its own right, title and interest is entitled for declaration and the relief of possession. Pending the suit, the respondent-plaintiff sought for interim injunction in regard to any action on the part of the appellants from alienating or changing the nature of the property. Along with the said application, the respondent filed another application in I A No.841 of 2009 virtually with similar allegations for appointment of a Commissioner. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was resisted by the appellants denying the right, title and possession as claimed by it in the plaint. The appellants resisted further claiming their right, title and interest apart from possession in pursuance of the registered sale deeds, dated 24-1-1997 and the subsequent proceedings of regularization in G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29-7- 2002, which was stated to have been upheld by this Court and the rejection of the injunction application filed by the respondent in an another suit, as stated above. With these and other detailed allegations as made from the respective sides, the Court below sought to proceed to find out whether the respondent has made out any prima facie case and would be entitled to injunction as sought for. The Court below, on a consideration of the entire facts and the material, especially giving a prima facie finding that there is no dispute in regard to the identity of the land, which is claimed by both sides, and there being no construction activity at present and the developer intends to make the construction in the property and in the event of which 3rd party rights would crop in, and therefore, it is necessary and equitable to direct both the parties not to alienate the suit property or change it physical features, allowed the application. Following the same reasoning the other application in I.A.841 of 2009 for appointment of Commissioner was dismissed. Though the order is one, which restrains both the parties from making any alienation or construction, the appeal is only at the instance of the defendants. No reason is forthcoming as to why the plaintiffs could not file the appeal. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that these proceedings are only of interlocutory nature and though the counsel on either side took us through the entire pleadings from both sides and on merits as to how they set up their claims apart from the checkered events including grant of regularization etc., and the effect thereof, however, the fact remains that these proceedings being only interlocutory, and unless and until a regular trial is taken up with necessary evidence in support, both oral and documentary, nothing as such can possibly be said nor it is permissible to give any finding. Even otherwise, any such venture would only prejudice the rights of both sides and it is premature to go into the same. Therefore, as rightly held by the Court below, it would be in the interest of justice and as well to protect the parties’ interest the suit shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible maintaining the orders which virtually amounts to status quo as against both. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the above appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the court below is directed to take up the main suit and dispose of the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, having regard to the fact that there are other two suits which are already filed respectively from both sides in O.S.No.389 of 2006 and O.S.No.2146 of 2008 in respect of the very same property, it is felt desirable that all the matters should be decided together. Accordingly, this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure directs the withdrawal of the aforesaid suits from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District to be tried and disposed of along with the present suit in O.S.No.260 of 2009 in the court below. No costs. _________________ (B PRAKASH RAO,J) _______________ (R.KANTHA RAO,J) DATE:14-03-2011 GRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO (Judgment of the Bench Pronounced by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) C.M.A.No.274 of 2010 Dated: 14-03-2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO (P.D. Judgment prepared by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) C.M.A.No.274 of 2010 Circulated to His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao for perusal.