HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 6297 OF 2009 Friday, the Thirty First day of November, Two Thousand and Nine Between M/s. JMR Developers Private Limited, Rep. By its Managing Director, Sri K.Jagan Mohan Rao, Office at Plot No. 149, Road No.72, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Petitioner AND Mr.P.Venkata Ravi Kishore and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 6297 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the first plaintiff in O.S. No. 719 of 2009 on the file of the III Addl. Chief Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2009 made in I.A. No. 4553 of 2009 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC directing the petitioner and the respondents therein not to alienate the property till 15.2.2010. The petitioner and the respondent 3 to 7 herein filed the above suit seeking to declare the cancellation of document No. 2635 of 2007 dated 12.7.2007 by document No. 3573 of 2009 dated 25.11.2009 executed by the first respondent herein unilaterally and to declare the cancellation of the document No. 9194 dated 12.7.2007 by document No. 2870 of 2009 dated 25.11.2009 executed by the second respondent herein unilaterally as null and void and not enforceable against the petitioner and third respondent herein. Along with the above suit, the petitioner and respondent 3 to 7 herein filed the above interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The court below, by the following cryptic order, directed both the parties not to alienate the property till 15.2.2010. “…Notice given. Sri E.A.R. ((E.Ajay Reddy) filed vakalath for R1.S Sri E.A.R. offers vakalath for R2. For counter of R1 and Vakalath and counter of R2 by 15.2.2010 and petitioners and respondents shall not alienate property till then…” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below ought not to have restrained the petitioner from alienating the property inasmuch as after alienation only, it can pay the proportionate share as per the entitlement of the parties and, therefore, the order impugned is beyond the scope of the relief sought for in the petition. It is further contended that at the most the respondents are entitled to only 17,603 SFT (six flats) along with the parking and for this extent, they cannot stay the entire project. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the court below is perfectly justified in passing the order impugned inasmuch as it is an innocuous order and protects the interests of both the parties, pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below ought to have adverted to reasons before restraining the parties from alienating the property, inasmuch as it is case of the petitioner herein that the respondents are, at best, entitled to only 17,603 SFT viz., six flats and with this extent, they cannot stall the entire project. In this premise, without adverting to the various contentions raised by the counsel on either side, as no reasons are assigned by the court below in passing the impugned order, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the court below for passing orders afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari December 31, 2009 MAS.