N. Ravi Shankar, J.

1. Appellants in this miscellaneous appeal who are 33 in number are respondents 1 to 33 in Arbitration O.P. (AOP) No.750 of 2011 on the file of the court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (trial court). The cause title of the appeal shows that appellants 1 to 31 are represented by their General Power of Attorney holders who are appellants 32 and 33. That application (AOP) was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Act), for an interim relief/measure after passing of the award and pending disposal of three applications which were already filed under Section 34 of the Act challenging that award.

2. This appeal is filed questioning an ex parte order dated 02.09.2011 granted by the trial court in the aforesaid AOP restraining them by way of a temporary injunction as an interim measure from alienating or creating any third party interest or encumbrance over the AOP schedule property or changing its nature. This interim order was granted upto 29.09.2011. Nothing is placed on record to show whether the said ex parte interim order of the trial court was extended further. Appellants did not file any application or move the trial court otherwise by filing counter to have the said ex parte order vacated, but presented this appeal on 13.09.2011 and interim suspension of the impugned order was granted by this court on 13.12.2011. AOP schedule property is an extent of 17 acres of land more fully described in the AOP schedule which is the disputed property. It is necessary to note the respective cases of the parties and hereafterwards they shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the AOP.

3. M/s. Ever shine Builders Private Limited, which is the first respondent in this appeal, is the petitioner in the AOP. It is the admitted case of the respective parties that M/s. Ever shine Builders entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 31.03.2006 with appellants 32 and 33 viz., Burugapalli Sivarama Krishna and Burugupalli Nagamuneswari and the second respondent herein viz., S.C.Mohan Reddy for purchase of the AOP schedule property for a consideration of Rs.105 crores and paid Rs.1 crore as advance. As disputes arose between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitral tribunal eventually passed the award dated 12.01.2008 refusing the relief of specific performance claimed by the first respondent, but granted damages to the tune of Rs.4 crores.

4. The first respondent, aggrieved by the award to the extent of refusing the relief of specific performance, filed O.P.No.713 of 2009 in the trial court questioning the award.

The second respondent S.C.Mohan Reddy filed O.P.No.328 of 2011 questioning the award of damages and appellants 32 and 33 also filed O.P.No.329 of 2011 questioning the award of damages. All the three O.Ps. are filed under Section 34 of the Act and are pending in the trial court. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the grievances of the several parties arising out of the award, as these have to be decided by the trial court in the three OPs.

5. While so, the first respondent filed AOP No.750 of 2011 for interim relief of temporary injunction or an interim order, independently under Section 9 of the Act complaining that the appellants herein are trying to alienate the disputed property in favour of third parties either by selling or otherwise encumbering it and if that is allowed, its interests would suffer irreparably as its claim for specific performance is pending adjudication in O.P.No.713 of 2009 and therefore an injunction is necessary till the disposal of the three AOPs. In AOP No.750 of 2011, the trial court granted an ex parte interim order/injunction as requested by the first respondent till 29.09.2011. It is this order which is questioned in this appeal.

6. Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants raised four points in support of his cont