HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD O.S.A.Nos. 26 and 27 of 2011 Date: 23-03-2011 O.S.A.No.26 of 2011: Between: Wardha Power Company Limited ………. Appellant And Maytas Infra Ltd ……….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD O.S.A.Nos. 26 and 27 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Heard both sides. Since these two appeals are interconnected with each other, they are taken up together for disposal. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. At their request, the main appeals are taken up together for disposal at the admission stage. The appellant herein is the applicant before the learned single Judge in the applications in C.A.No.1094 of 2010 and C.A.No.1552 of 2010, where two interim reliefs are sought viz., 1) direction purportedly under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. against the respondent- company not to alienate, encumber or otherwise create any charge or deal with their assets including the immovable properties in any manner whatsoever; and 2) to direct the respondent-company to maintain status quo with regard to its name, pending disposal of the main C.P.No.199 of 2010. The learned single Judge, after contest, did not find favour and dismissed the applications through the orders, dated 18-02-2011. Hence, these appeals. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that the applications as such being interlocutory in its nature, the learned single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and given findings as such and further even though the appellant has asked for two reliefs, however, if any alternative relief is granted, that could be enough to protect the interest of the appellant. These requests were sought to be opposed on behalf of the respondent- company. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly the impugned proceedings are only interlocutory in its nature. Therefore, it is needless to reiterate that any of the findings or observations made in the impugned proceedings would not be, in any way, binding at the time of final disposal of the case and necessarily it has to be disposed of independently taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both sides. Further, the main proceedings certainly would be disposed of uninfluenced by any of the findings in these proceedings. Coming to the aspect of other alternative relief, which was raised for the first time in this appeal, we are of the view that it is always open for the appellant to make any fresh application which would be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. Subject to the above, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 23-03-2011 YCR