C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed against Order, dated 10-02-2017, in I.A. No. 186 of 2016 in LGOP. No. 263 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. We have heard Mr. Kishore Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. V. Eswaraiah Chowdhary, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed LGOP No. 263 of 2017 to declare the petitioners as land grabbers in respect of the petition schedule property. Along with the OP, they have filed the aforesaid IA under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for grant of interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein and respondent No. 7 from making further construction. By the impugned order, the lower Court has granted interim injunction while ordering notice to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by this order, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in the LGOP filed this Writ Petition.

3. At the hearing, Mr. Kishore Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, advanced three submissions viz., (i) that the lower Court has straight away allowed the application for injunction and granted interim injunction as prayed for; (ii) that even assuming that the impugned order is interim in nature, the Court below has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 3 of Order XXXIX CPC; and (iii) that the lower Court has failed to consider the IA for injunction by applying the well-known parameters of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

4. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on Dr. K.L. Narayana v. Special Tribunal u/A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and others (1) 2017 ALD 655 (DB).

5. Mr. V. Eswaraiah Chowdhary, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, submitted that by the impugned order, the lower Court has granted ad interim injunction; that the words "petition is allowed" were mentioned by inadvertent mistake by the lower Court and that a reading of the order in its entirety makes it clear that the lower Court has granted an ad interim injunction until further orders. The learned Counsel further submitted that since the impugned order of injunction is ex parte in nature, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal does not lie. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jagadamba Phosphate v. Coromandel International Ltd., Secunderabad 2016 (6) ALT 491 (DB). The learned Counsel further submitted that the lower Court has discussed the prima facie merits of the case; that it was satisfied that his clients deserve an ad interim order and that therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties with reference to the record.

7. As regards the first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, undoubtedly, the words in the concluding portion of the impugned order "In the result, the petition is allowed" would indicate that the Court below has disposed of the petition. However, if we read the order as a whole, these words appear to be the result of an inadvertent error committed by the lower Court. The sentences preceding and following these words would make it clear that the Court below has intended the impugned order to be passed purely as an interim order and not as a final order. The said portion of the order reads as under:

"Hence, in the above circumstances, interim injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from making any further construction in the schedule property until further orders.

In the result, the petition is allowed restraining the respondents from making further constructions until further orders. Issue urgent notice to respondents through courier and speed post,"

(emphasis supplied)

8. Though the lower Court has not properly applied its mind