Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.09.2016.

2. Notice in this appeal was issued on 26.07.2017. On that date, at the say so of the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.4 to 13 were deleted from the array of parties.

2.1. Mr. B.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3, who was present at that time, is present in Court today as well.

2.2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

3. Mr. D.Ravichander, who appears for the appellant, says, while, the learned Single Judge has ruled that no prima facie is found case in favour of the contesting respondents, i.e., respondent No.1 to 3, a direction has been issued against the appellant not to alienate and encumber the subject property. Counsel for the appellant further says that while, the appellant is in the business of development of property and construction, the appellant has no intention of using the subject property, if and when, it is developed for commercial purposes.

4. As a matter of fact, the appellant, conceded as much before the learned Single Judge. In para