Temporary injunctions must align with the relief sought in the main suit; granting relief beyond this scope is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Heard Sri S. Malla Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Venkat Ramana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants herein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in I.A No.1302 of 2024 in I.A.No.151 of 2024 in A.S.No.16 of 2016 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, granting injunction in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/petitioners, restraining the appellants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the condone delay petition (I.A.No.151 of 2024).

3. The background facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed suit in O.S.No.2024 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judge- cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the appellants herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land consisting of Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.115/2 and Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.115/3 altogether admeasuring Ac.3.25 guntas together with three rooms corresponding to Town Survey No.1/2/part, Block–L, Ward 89 of Khairtabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad. The said suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.06.2015. During pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not granted any temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2024 of 2009, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein preferred A.S.No.16 of 2016 on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed for default on 06.06.2023. During pendency of the appeal also there was no temporary injunction in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. After dismissal of the appeal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.(SR)No. 157 of 2024 for restoration of the appeal with a condone delay petition in I.A.No.151 of 2024 to condone delay of 186 days in filing the I.A. for restoration of the appeal. Along with the I.A. to condone delay, I.A.No.1302 of 2024 was filed along with affidavits of third parties seeking ad interim injunction. In the said interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.1302 of 2024, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein sought ad interim injunction to restrain the appellants herein from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the condone delay application i.e. I.A.No.151 of 2024. An ex parte temporary injunction order was granted in I.A.No.1302 of 2024 vide impugned order dated 29.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred.

4. In grounds of appeal, the appellants have pleaded that no ad interim injunction could have been granted when an application for condone delay was filed and pending. Further, an appeal is a continuation of a suit and the procedure applicable in the suit has to be adhered to, more so when the suit has been dismissed and the appeal also was dismissed for default. Further, the relief of injunction granted in the I.A. that is restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property during pendency after the application to condone delay is beyond the scope of relief of perpetual injunction sought in the main suit and said suit has been dismissed and is challenged vide A.S.No.16 of 2016, which was dismissed for default. Further, there is misinterpretation of the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in M/s. Vinayak Conclave Pvt. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation , AIR 1995 Calcutta 113 relied upon by