The appellate court found the Trial Court's vacation of the interim injunction unjustified, emphasizing the importance of maintaining status quo in ongoing litigation.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

Since the issue in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. D.V. Sitaram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. These are two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the appellants challenging the common order dated 31.07.2024 in I.A.Nos.552 and 553 of 2024 in O.S.No.110 of 2023, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy.

4. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For the sake of facility, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the Trial Court.

5. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court has allowed the petitions filed by defendant No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘ CPC ’) i.e. I.A.Nos.552 & 553 of 2024. As a consequence, the interim injunction order of status quo passed on 19.05.2023 by the then Vacation Court was set aside. It is this vacation of the interim injunction granted on 19.05.2023 of which the plaintiffs are aggrieved of; leading to filing of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

6. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are that the plaintiffs filed an original suit for declaration of title and for cancellation of few sale deeds along with the prayer for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule A, B and C properties. Along with the suit, I.A.Nos.269 & 270 of 2023 were filed seeking for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit schedule property. The prayer was also seeking a restraint order against the defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.

7. While addressing the Court so far as grant of temporary injunction is concerned, the plaintiffs made a statement before the Trial Court that in another suit in respect of the same property, there is already an order of status quo in force granted by the concerned Court and therefore prayed for grant of injunction so far as maintaining status quo in the instant original suit as well. The Trial Court, vide order dated 19.05.2023 believing the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of there being another injunction order already in force in another connected suit, was pleased to grant the order of status quo. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the High Court challenging the order dated 19.05.2023. The High Court initially was pleased to suspend the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court on 19.05.2023; however the defendant No.1 withdrew the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeals with a liberty to agitate his rights before the Trial Court itself. After withdrawal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the plaintiffs again approached the Trial Court and got the earlier order dated 19.05.2023 restored whereby the status quo was granted, vide order dated 01.04.2024.

8. It is at this juncture that the two Interlocutory Applications i.e. I.A.Nos.552 and 553 of 2024 were filed by defendant No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for setting aside the interim injunction order granted on 19.05.2023. Being a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, it was the contention of defendant No.1 who had filed the said petitions that the interim order of injunction was obtained by material misrepresentation and suppression of facts, and therefore, the injunction order of status quo obtained by misrepresentation is liable to be set aside.

9. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide the impugned common order had allowed the two Interlocutory Applications accepting the contention of d