THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.497 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.42 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, against the appellants, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed, after contest. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent filed A.S.No.23 of 2007 in the Family Court- cum-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. It is stated that the respondent made efforts to amend the plaint to incorporate the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property. The I.A. was partly allowed, permitting the amendment of the plaint, only as regards declaration of title. That, however, is a different aspect. The respondent filed I.A.No.39 of 2010, in the appeal, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., with a prayer to restrain the appellants from modifying, or altering, the nature of the suit schedule property. The appellants opposed the same. The I.A. was allowed on 26.05.2010. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Vemuganti Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit filed by the respondent was for the relief of injunction simplicitor and that was dismissed. It is not even alleged that the respondent had the benefit of an order of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The appeal was filed way back in the year 2007 and till the year 2010, he did not have the benefit of any temporary injunction during the pendency of the appeal. It was only in the year 2010 that he filed the I.A. under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., with a prayer to restrain the appellants from altering the nature of the suit schedule property. The appellants categorically pleaded that they have not only obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation to make construction on the suit schedule property, but also raised the structure to a certain extent and gathered material for completion thereof. Under these circumstances, the order of injunction preventing them from making construction would certainly lead to hardship. The stoppage of construction halfway through would not benefit the respondent and on the other hand, it would cause serious hardship to the appellants. Therefore, the C.M.A. is allowed, and the order under appeal is set aside. It is, however, directed that, in case the suit filed by the respondent is decreed and he is made entitled to recover possession of the property, the appellants shall not claim equities, in respect of the construction made by them. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:03.08.2010 GJ