MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) CMA No. 1969 of 1999 arises out of an order passed in IA No. 1756 of 1999, CMA No. 1970 of 1999 arises out of an order passed in IANo. 1757 of 1999. C. R. P. No. 2889 of 1999 aries out of an order passed in IA No. 1758 of 1999 and C. R. P. NO. 2890 of 1999 arises out of and order possession IA No. 1789 of 1999.

( 2 ) ORDERS passed in the above IAs. by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad, dated 15-7-1999 are assailed before us in these two CMAs and two CRPs.

( 3 ) SINCE the appellants in both the CMAs and the revision petitioners in both the CRPS and the respondents thereto are one and the same, these four matters are decided by this judgment.

( 4 ) THE respondents herein instituted a suit in O. S. No. 294 of 1999 against these appellants and petitioners on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking the following reliefs : (1) to pass a decree for specific performance of the Mou dated 3-10-1996 in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of Schedule 1a and 1b as per the plaint schedule. (2) to direct the 1st defendant to receive the balance of consideration if any from the plaintiffs after reconciliation of the accounts and execute and register the sale deeds at the expenses of the plaintiffs and on failure to do so by the 1st defendant the sate deeds be executed and registered according to law at the expenses of the plaintiffs by the Hon ble Court, in favour of 2nd plaintiff as per the request of the 1st plaintiff; (3) without prejudices to above for grant of compensation for various defaults committed and injuries caused to the plaintiffs in the circumstances of the case; (4) to grant such other relief or reliefs to the plaintiffs in the circumstance of the case. (5) Cost of the suit. Along with the said suit, the respondents herein have also filed four interlocutory applications in l. A. Nos. 1756, 1757, 1758 and 1759 of 1999 for the following reliefs, viz. ,i,a. No. 1756 of 1999: Filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents (appellants/petitioners herein) from entering into any sort of agreement and not to create any charge in favour of third parties including by way of sale or lease or pledge or otherwise of the Schedule 1 (A) and 1 (B) properties, filed along with the plaint. LA. No. 1757 of 1999: Filed under Order 39, Rules t and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents (appellants/petitioners herein) or their officers, agents or persons claiming through or under them not to interfere the ingress and egress, the men and materials of the petitioner (respondents herein) with peaceful possession, enjoyment and running the said two units of the 1st petitioner company at Nandigaon and Dommeru including manufacturing and marketing of the finished goods; LA. No. 1758 of 1999: Filed under Section 151 CPC seeking to permit the petitioner (1st respondent herein) to operate the bank accounts i. e. , Punjab National Bank, R. P. Branch, Secunderabad, State Bank of Hyderabad, Habsiguda Branch, State Bank of India, Kovvur Branch and Vijaya Bank, Kovvur Branch bearing Account Nos. CA 4345, 01000050347 and CA 303 respectively, independently by the petitioners or their nominees; andi. A. No. I759ofl999: Filed under Section 151 CPC seeking to permit the petitioner (1st respondent herein) to pay the Central Excise Duty and Sales Tax and other statutory obligations independently and to issue the invoice-cum-challans, gate passes and to remove the goods manufactured from the said two units mentioned in the Schedule 1 (A) and 1 (B) and to market them either by themselves or by their agents or servants independently the petitioners or their nominees.

( 5 ) THE Court below considered all these interlocutory applications and granted the reliefs as prayed for by an order dated 15-7-1999 while direct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document