( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. is directed against the judgment dated 27-10-2003 passed by the I additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L. B. Nagar, in C. M. A. No. 14 of 2003, setting aside the order dt. 9-12-2002, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy district, in I. A. No. 209 of 2002 in O. S. No. 82 of 2002.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief may be noted, and they run thus - The 2nd respondent-Allapur Co-operative Housing society Ltd. , was formed with the object of buying, selling, holding and developing land for allotment to its members. One sri V. Satyanarayana, who was a member of the said society, was allotted a plot bearing no. 21-A, and he purchased the same under ex. B-2-sale deed dated 11 -6-1973 from the society. Subsequently, Sri Satyanarayana sold the said plot to the 1st respondent under Ex. B-1-sale deed dated 10-11-1983. While the matters stood thus, the 2nd respondent on the ground that the original allottee failed to construct house in the allotted plot and kept it vacant for more than 28 years, re-allotted the plot to the petitioner, who joined the society as a member during 1990, purportedly invoking clause 42 (A) (10) of the Bye-laws of the society. The petitioner states that an amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 was collected from him by the society, and that in the meeting convened on 2-4-2000, that registration of the plot in favour of the petitioner would be done after one year. The petitioner claimed that on the basis of Ex. A-3-allotment letter dated 10-12-1999, issued by the society, he constructed a house and is also running a school therein. It is the case of the petitioner that when the 1st respondent tried to interfere with his possession, he filed suit o. S. No. 82 of 2002 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad west and South, Ranga Reddy District, seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and obtained ad interim injunction in I. A. No. 209 of 2002 on 9-12-2002. There against, the 1st respondent filed an appeal in C. M. A. No. 14 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District judge, Ranga Reddy District, who by his judgment and decree dated 27-10-2003, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner filed this c. R. P.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the original allottee had not constructed the house in the plot allotted to him and kept it vacant for more than 28 years, the 2nd respondent passed a resolution on 20-9-1999 to re-allot the said plot to the petitioner and in pursuance of which, the society issued Ex. A-3-letter of allotment dated 10-12-1999. Inasmuch as the petitioner as on the date of filing of the suit was in possession of the suit schedule property by constructing a house and running a school therein, which is reflected by Ex. B-4-FIR dated 8-2-2000 lodged by the 1st respondent, the appellate Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the trial Court granting ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, and more so when the fundamental principle governing grant of ad interim injunction is prima-facie case and balance of convenience. The learned counsel submitted that the Court below failed to look into the conditions recited in ex. B-1-sale deed dated 10-11-1983, which the 1st respondent had violated, and therefore, the 2nd respondent cancelled the sale deed and re-allotted the plot to the petitioner. At any rate, he submits that the appellate Court having held that the question whether or not the 2nd respondent can invoke the Bye-laws to cancel the allotment, is a question raising a debate, ought not to have vacated the ad interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner by the trial court. The learned couns