The appellants 1 to 5 in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are the defendants in O.S.No.316 of 2014 pending on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the said suit. These two appeals are arising out of the impugned common order in I.A.Nos.209 & 210 of 2014 in O.S.No.316 of 2014, dated 18.08.2017, passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge supra, which applications are filed for the relief sought by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 against six defendants, of whom besides defendants 1 to 5-appellants herein supra defendant No.6 is the Star Homes Infratech India (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director S.Narender Reddy, added as per the orders in I.A.No.621 of 2015 & I.A.No.619 of 2015 respectively and as per the order dated 18.04.2016 in I.A.No.1619 of 2015 in the plaint. In fact, in the plaint originally three plaintiffs filed the suit vis-a-vis the two injunction applications in I.A.Nos.209 & 210 of 2014 supra. After filing of the suit the plaintiffs 4 and 5 viz., K.Y. Shalini @ Mukka Shalini and K. Pavani @ Borra pavani were impleaded as per the orders in I.A.No.957 of 2014. Undisputedly, but for in the suit they were not impleaded as co-petitioners or co- respondents to I.A.Nos.209 and 210 of 2014 covered by the impugned common order of the lower Court. In the present appeals, the array impugning the common order of the learned V Senior Civil Judge supra was showing the five appellants-defendants and three respondents-plaintiffs. The plaintiffs 4 and 5 impleaded in the suit as per the orders in I.A.No.957 of 2014 being not parties to I.A.Nos.209 & 210 of 2014 covered by the impugned common order, rightly not impleaded in the two appeals. It is therefrom those plaintiffs 4 & 5 sought for impleadment in the two appeals by filing applications in C.M.A.M.P.No.1912 of 2017 and C.M.A.M.P.No.1880 of 2017 as to add them as respondents 5 and 6 in the present appeals. It is not even their case that they were impleaded in I.A.Nos.209 & 210 of 2014 and what they stated in the respective affidavits of one Sri K. Laxmaiah, Advocate, G.P.A. holder of two persons in claiming that they are his daughters and residents of U.S.A. and in their childhood he purchased the house under the registered Sale Deed, dated 14.08.1986, bearing municipal numbers 1-2-62, 1- 2-62/1, 1-2-63 admeasuring 544 square yards consisting of 244 square yards constructed area with 300 square yards open appurtenant site to it from the defendants 1 to 5 and their deceased father late P. Pandit Rao and deceased brother P. Prabhunath and in possession and enjoyment and the same described as B schedule property in the plaint and even they were impleaded as plaintiffs 4 and 5, due to inadvertence they have not been impleaded in I.A.Nos.209 & 210 of 2014 and as the defendants 1 to 5 are disputing the area as 300 square yards sold to them under the registered Sale Deed, though never questioned the registered Sale Deed they are interested in the dispute raised in the appeals and thereby to be impleaded.

2. Once they were not parties to the injunction applications in I.A.Nos.209 & 210 of 2014 covered by the impugned order, the question of their impleadment in the present miscellaneous appeals against the injunction order does not arise as rightly contended by the appellants- defendants and thereby, these petitions are liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.

3. Now, coming to the two appeals in question, the prayer in I.A.No.210 of 2014 sought by the three plaintiffs was to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff No.1-Lalitha and her husband Laxmaiah on behalf of their daughters in respect of the A & B schedule property described therein pending disposal of the suit. I.A.No.209 of 2014 was also with the prayer to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants and their men from