The grant of interim injunction is a discretionary remedy based on the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.4 assailing the order dated 01.10.2020 in IA No.70 of 2020 in IA No.390 of 2014 in OS No.352 of 2014 on the file of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.4 and for the respondents/plaintiffs. Perused the material placed on record. The detailed submissions have been made by both sides, which are more or less on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary for this Court to refer in detail such submissions. However, the submissions so made have received due consideration of the Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.

4. The plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit along with IA No.390 of 2014 for declaration of title and consequential injunction declaring the plaintiffs as owners and possessors in respect of suit schedule property. When the suit was pending trial, the present application is filed in IA No.70 of 2020 under Order-39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the original suit.

5. On a careful perusal of the order impugned, it is noticed from paras3 & 4 that on service of notice, respondents/defendants 1 to 3 remained absent, as such they were set ex parte, whereas respondent/defendant No.4 orally gave an undertaking before the trial Court stating that he is not going to alienate the petition schedule property and prayed for dismissal of the petition. The trial Court after hearing both sides allowed the application with an observation that prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs and that the defendants are trying to alienate the petition schedule properties. Accordingly, to preserve the suit schedule properties in status quo, ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants 1 to 4 and their men from alienating the suit schedule A & B properties during pendency of the suit.

6. The defendant No.4 has assailed the said orders by filing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court alleging that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts. In fact, there is no necessity for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. After verifying the records, the Court below found that in schedule A, land in Survey No.78 admeasuring Ac.0.32 guntas, in schedule-B, land in Survey No.75 – Ac.0.14 guntas and land in Survey No.85 – Ac.0.17 guntas is available. But the Court below has granted interim injunction not to alienate only for certain extent and not complete extent of land. The respondents 1 to 6 colluded with each other and completely sold the property in respect of which Sec.38-E certificate is obtained.

7. Whereas, respondents 2 to 6 who are the plaintiffs in the original suit, have filed detailed counter denying the grounds of appeal stating that the Court below ought to have seen that IA No.70 of 2020 in IA No.390 of 2014 in OS No.352 of 2014 ad-interim injunction was granted not to alienate the land in Survey No.75 – Ac.0.14 guntas, Survey No.78 – Ac.0.32 guntas and Survey No.85 – Ac.0.17 guntas total admeasuring Ac.1.23 guntas situated at Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, which is the schedule A & B properties. The trail Court also failed to consider that the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned order in IA No.70 of 2020 as per the Dharani, Survey No.75 total extent Ac.4.1000, Survey No.78 – Ac.9.2700 and Survey No.85 total extent - Ac.4.3900, but the Court below without

8. This application in IA No.70 of 2020 is filed under Order-39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from following due process held the complete extent of appellants’ land and