L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The plaintiff in OS No.824 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District filed this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C., feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No.3353 of 2001, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., through order, dated 26.2.2013.

2. The appellant is a private limited company, operating in the field of development and construction. Respondents 1 to 12 are said to be the joint owners of an extent of about Acs.21.00 of land in Survey No.37/2 of Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant states that it has negotiated with respondents 1 and 11 for development of their land and in the process, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered, into on 20.1.2011. According to the said MOU, a joint development agreement would be brought into existence, defining the rights and obligations of the parties.

3. With this background, the appellant prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents or anybody claiming through then from entering into any sort of contract of development, or such other nature in respect of the suit schedule property, till the dispute between them are fully resolved as per the MOU dated 20.1.2011. It has also filed IA No.753 of 2001 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., almost on the same lines, prayed for in the suit. The contents for the plaint were repeated in the affidavit filed in support of the application.

4. The application was opposed by the respondents, raising several objections. The various events that have taken place between the parties, ever since the MOU was entered into, were narrated in detail. It was also pleaded that the appellant themselves expressed doubt about the title in respect of the property, and at no point of time, they have evinced any interest. Another contention was that the MOU itself had expired on 4.4.2011 and whatever relations that existed between the parties on the basis of MOU, have ceased to survive. Objection was also raised as to the very maintainability of the suit.

5. Separate counter-affidavits were filed by respondents 1 to 8, 9 and 10 and 11, 12 and 13.

6. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 26.2.2013.

7. Sri B. Venkatrama Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the MOU has created mutual rights and obligations as between the parties and the purpose of filing of the suit was only to ensure that the respondents do not violate their obligations. He contends that such a suit is very much within the ambit of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. Learned Counsel further submits that the proposed joint development agreement would have the effect of defining the rights of the parties finally, and the MOU is almost in the form of agreement of sale, vis-à-vis a sale deed. He submits that even after the MOU, considerable correspondence had ensued and that the balance of convenience is an favour of granting temporary injunction.

8. Sri E. Ajay Reddy, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the suit itself is not maintainable since the appellant did not possess rights of any kind whatever, vis-à-vis the property. He contends that even if the joint development agreement contemplated under the MOU was to be treated as a final document, comparable to a sale deed, the only remedy open to the appellant was to file a suit for specific performance, and not a suit of the nature presented before the trial Court. He further submits that the MOU stood terminated by afflux of time, and there was no concluded contract or a firm commitment by a party, towards the other.

9. The nature of the suit filed by the appellant herein has been broadly indicated at the threshold itself. An interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., almost for the similar relief was filed. Though the main relief claimed in the suit and