( 1 ) COMMON Order: c. M. P. Nos. 18125/2003 and 18126/2003 were filed praying for the relief of temporary injunction and for suspension of Judgment and decree made in A. S. No. 77/2001 and likewise C. M. P. No. 18127/2003 and 18128/2003 were filed in S. A. No. 406/2003 praying for temporary injunction and suspension of Judgment and decree made in A. S. No. 78/2001 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Similar applications C. M. P. Nos. 8754 and 8755 of 2003 in S. A. No. 406/2003 were filed which were dismissed on 1-5-2003.

( 2 ) THE legal representatives of Sri G. Hanumantha Rao are prosecuting these litigations at present. The said G. Hanumantha Rao filed O. S. No. 166/95 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge. Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy District for the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondent in these applications filed O. S. No. 12/98 on the file of the self same Court for the relief of specific performance and also for perpetual injunction. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy, tried both the suits together and decreed O. S. No. 166/95 and dismissed O. S. No. 12/98 and aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed A. S. No. 77/2001 and A. S. No. 78/2001 as against those Judgments and decrees respectively and Appeals were allowed. During the pendency of these Appeals, the said G. Hanumantha Rao died and the legal representatives were brought on record. Aggrieved by the said Judgments and decrees made by the appellate Court reversing the Judgments and decrees made by the trial Court, the said legal representatives of the deceased G. Hanumantha Rao preferred S. A. No. 405/2003 and S. A. No. 406/2003 and no doubt these Second Appeals were admitted. Similar applications referred to supra were filed which were dismissed and again these applications are proved praying for the self same reliefs.

( 3 ) SRI Narsing Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in fact had touched the merits and demerits of the matter to prima facie show that the petitioners are having a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience also is in their favour and if status quo is not maintained during the pendency of these Second Appeals, the petitioners would be put to serious loss. The learned Counsel also would maintain that having admitted the Second Appeals, interim relief was refused without recording any reason and in the light of the subsequent events which had been well explained in para-15 of the affidavit filed in support of these applications, definitely these applications are maintainable. The Counsel also would maintain that the question of applicability of principle of res judicata would not arise at all in matters of this nature since these are all interlocutory orders which would be made to preserve status quo during the pendency of a particular litigation. The learned Counsel also had explained several factual aspects and ultimately had concluded that in the facts and circumstances of the case the reliefs prayed for are to be granted in the interest of justice of maintain status quo. Reliance also was place on MADAN LAL Vs. BADRI NARAYAN AIR 1988 Rajasthan 61.

( 4 ) PER contra Sri Venugopal Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent had taken this Court through several details which had been narrated in the common counter affidavit filed opposing these applications and had maintained that the reliefs prayed for in these applications are virtually the same reliefs which had been prayed for in the prior applications and in fact the prior applications also were heard and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that these are not fit matters where any interim orders can be granted and ultimately had dismissed the said applications. Hence moving the present applications with similar reliefs would be definitely abuse of process of law. The Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the dismissal of the applications, the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document