THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.1084 of 2010 JUDGMENT:(per Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order, dated 02.09.2010, passed by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs. & STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, allowing the application in I.A. No.339 of 2010 in O.S.No.442 of 2010, filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, restraining the appellant from making any construction in the suit schedule property and changing the nature of the property. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed O.S.No.442 of 2010 against the appellant and other respondents herein for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. They filed the above said I.A. for injunction against the appellant herein. The appellant herein remained ex parte before the Court below. The Court below, having considered the contentions, held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and that balance of convenience and irreparable loss was in their favour, and accordingly allowed the application, restraining the appellant from making any constructions in the suit schedule property and changing the nature of the property. 3. Before this Court, respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs filed counter stating that the appellant filed application I.A. No. 867 of 2010 before the Court below, seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed against him, and also application in I.A. No. 868 of 2010, praying to vacate the injunction order, and the same are pending. It is stated that the appellant without prosecuting the said applications filed this appeal, and as such, the appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. 5. As can be seen from the order under appeal, the appellant remained ex parte. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed material papers. A perusal of the same would disclose that respondent No.13 herein, who is shown as not a necessary party, earlier filed suit in O.S. No. 58 of 2008 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking partition of the suit schedule property, and filed interlocutory application in I.A. No. 151 of 2008, seeking injunction, stating that respondent No.12, appellant herein have expressed that they are only the owners of the plot and they are going to alienate the suit schedule properties to third parties after completion of construction. If they succeed in their illegal attempts, the petitioners/plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury and it may cause multiplicity of litigations. The petitioners/ plaintiffs came to know that the respondents/defendants No.2 and 12 colluded with each other and trying to defeat the legitimate right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. The said application is pending. However, praying for the very same relief and with the very same averments, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the present suit O.S. No. 442 of 2010 along with I.A. No. 339 of 2010. It is the contention of the appellant that even though there are no changed circumstances, the Court below, without considering the same, granted interim injunction. Even though the relief sought by the respondents-plaintiffs is only for injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of third parties, but the Court below, while granting injunction order, went beyond the prayer and granted injunction restraining the appellant from making any constructions in the suit schedule property and changing the nature of the property, which relief the respondents-plaintiff did not seek in the present application. Further, having regard to the fact that the applications filed by the appellants herein namely I.A. No. 867 of 2010 and 868 of 2010, seeking to set aside the ex parte order and injunction order, and having regard to the fact that in the grant of interim injunction the Court below exceeded the scope of the relief and granted excess relief, which was not prayed for by the plaintiffs, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and we accordingly the set aside the same. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. However, the appellant is directed not to alienate the suit schedule properties, until disposal of the suit. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs would file application for grant of injunction along with necessary material. They are at liberty to do so, if law permits, and if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. No costs. _________________ N.V.RAMANA, J ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J Date:30.12.2010 sj