HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.No.80 of 2011 Date: 03-8-2011 Between Kondakkagari Nagulamma … Appellant/Respondent and Shaik Fakruddin … Respondent/Petitioner HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.No.80 of 2011 Judgment: (per N.V.Ramana, J.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant- respondent against the order dated 20-01-2011 in I.A.No.928 of 2010 in O.S.No.8 of 2010 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa district, wherein the interim injunction granted on 27-10-2010 in favour of the respondent-petitioner restraining the appellant-respondent, her men and agents from encumbering or alienating the petition schedule properties was made absolute. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent-defendant and the respondent is the petitioner-plaintiff before the trial Court. The suit is filed for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale dated 21-5-2010 alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that before granting the interim injunction, the trial Court has not even considered the aspect of prima facie case by any material or any reason was assigned and simply stating that the suit is pending, interim injunction was granted. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that by granting the interim injunction no prejudice is caused to the appellant-defendant because the suit is pending and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. 5. There can be no doubt that the question as to whether the suit agreement is a forged one or not can be decided only after full-fledged trial, but since it is the specific case of the appellant-defendant that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and that she did not execute the suit document, much less received the sale consideration mentioned thereunder, burden is on respondent-plaintiff, who is claiming injunction, to place material before the Court to prima facie show that it was executed by the appellant-defendant by receiving the sale consideration, and that balance of convenience lies in her favour, and that if injunction is not granted, she would suffer irreparably. However, a reading of the order under appeal would disclose, that the Court below did not consider the application for injunction, in the light of the principles governing the grant of temporary injunction, and without there being any material placed by the respondent-plaintiff to show that he had prima facie case for grant of injunction, that balance of convenience lies in his favour and that irreparable loss would be caused if no injunction is granted, granted injunction merely on the ground that the plea of forgery raised by the appellant-defendant can be examined at the time of hearing of the suit, and that till the disposal of the suit for specific performance, the suit schedule property should be protected and that if pending disposal of the suit, the appellant-defendant alienates the suit schedule property, third party rights would creep in, and therefore, it to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is necessary that injunction should be granted. Since the Court below passed the order under appeal, merely considering the fact that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the schedule and did not consider the same in the light of the principles governing the grant of temporary injunction, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to take into consideration the material placed before it by giving an opportunity to both sides and decide the issue once again and dispose of the application in the light of the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the mean time, status quo as on today shall be maintained by both parties. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed setting aside the order under appeal and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J. 03rd August, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.No.80 of 2011 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by NVR, J.) 03rd August, 2011. (Ak)