THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A. Nos. 702 and 704 of 2010 Common Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) These two C.M.As are filed against the common order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in dismissing the I.A. Nos.49 and 50 of 2010 in O.S. No. 472 of 2007. I.A. No. 49 of 2010 in O.S. No. 472 of 2007 is filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents and their men from alienating the suit schedule property and whereas I.A. No. 50 of 2010 in O.S. No. 472 of 2007 is filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents and their men from making any constructions in the suit schedule property. Heard both the counsel and perused the entire material placed before us. The appellant herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 472 of 2007 for specific performance based on an agreement of sale dated 09.03.2004 alleged to have been executed by the father of the respondents. In the plaint, the appellant herein stated that the respondents are trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties to defeat her rights. Though the appellant filed the suit in the year 2007, she did not take any steps to file an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property along with the suit. Nearly three years after filing the suit, she filed the present petitions seeking temporary injunction. The inaction on the part of the appellant at the time of filing of suit and filing of the present petitions at belated stage clearly shows the conduct of the appellant. Moreover, if really the respondents alienate the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit, the said alienations will be hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and not binding on the appellant. The Court below, on proper appreciation of the entire material placed before it and after taking all the above said aspects into consideration, has rightly came to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out for granting the interim reliefs and we do not see any reason to interfere with the same in exercise of discretionary powers. The C.M.As are devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 28.12.2010 Nsr