JUDGMENT :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard Sri K.Mohan, learned counsel for appellants and Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Ch.A.B.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and 6. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

2. The order against which this appeal is filed chronicled the facts as asserted by the parties to litigation. Therefore, for brevity, this Court is not recording all those details. Suffice to note that the suit schedule plots form part of a composite land of Acs.10.39 guntas in Sy.Nos.137, 140 and 150 of Yapral, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 claim to have succeeded to original owners and the 5th petitioner purchased a part of the composite block. They claim to have entered into agreement with plaintiff No.6 to develop the suit schedule land. The plaintiffs claim to have obtained orders of approval of layout from HMDA and building permissions from GHMC. The suit “A to C” schedule plots are plot Nos.58 to 63, 82 and 87 to 91 in a layout named as ‘Krish Enclave’ forming part of layout developed in the composite land.

3. The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.13 of 2021 in the Court of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar praying to grant decree declaring that the plaintiffs 1 to 5 are joint absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property; that the documents listed in prayer (b) are null and void and not binding on plaintiffs; and to grant decree of perpetual injunction restraining defendants and all persons claiming through them from interfering with lawful possession over the suit schedule property.

4. In the said suit the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.59 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) praying to grant temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule “A to C” properties. By order dated 14.9.2021 the I.A. was allowed granting temporary injunction as prayed. This appeal is against the said order.

5. At this stage, it is also necessary to chronicle the litigation history leading to the order under Appeal:

(1) A Vacation Judge of this High Court allowed the Receive and Transmit Petition No.5 of 2021 and while doing so, the learned single Judge also granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of plaintiffs in I.A.No.1 of 2021;

(2) This was challenged in C.M.A.No.90 of 2021 before this Court. On 22.02.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.90 of 2021, the said order dt.12.01.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 was suspended;

(3) This order was questioned in S.L.P.No.3825 of 2021 by the plaintiffs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.03.2021 stayed the order of this Court for six (06) weeks and directed this Court to decide the CMA on merits within four (04) weeks;

(4) By order dated 17.04.2021, the CMA was allowed holding that no reasons were assigned while granting the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication of the interim injunction application (which had been numbered by the Court below as I.A.No.59 of 2021);

(5) This order was questioned by the plaintiffs in S.L.P.No.6162 of 2021. On 19.04.2021, the Supreme Court passed an order of status quo till the Trial Court decides the I.A.No.59 of 2021;

(6) On 25.05.2021, the Supreme Court directed that till the order is passed by the Trial Court, status quo should be maintained by the parties;

(7) On remand, the Trial Court passed orders on 01.06.2021 as prayed by the plaintiffs/petitioners, granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs;

(8) On 01.07.2021, the SLP was dismissed as infructuous;

(9.1) Aggrieved thereby, C.M.A.No.314 of 2021 was filed. This Court considered elaborately the precedent litigation and the view taken by the Trial Court in granting injunction. This Court notice