JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents.

2. These two Miscellaneous appeals are filed against the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 and I.A.No.2, allowing the I.A.No.1 by restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit properties and from obstructing them in carrying out the necessary civil works to the suit properties, pending disposal of the suit and also made it clear by passing an order that plaintiffs are directed to effect the repair/civil works to the suit properties without meddling with the common areas of the apartment building.

3. I.A.No.2 is rejected. Hence, these two appeals are filed by the plaintiffs as well as defendant.

4. The plaintiff is before this Court, against the rejection of I.A.No.2 passed in O.S.No.4567/2023, rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs, restraining the these defendants from using the common area surrounding the apartment owned by the plaintiffs bearing No.1 on the ground floor and first floor in Tower-2 of the residential complex for any other purpose other than to maintain a garden. The other appeal is filed by the defendants on granting the relief in favour of the plaintiffs restraining them from interfering peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

5. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.7811/2023 is that in view of the rejection of I.A.No.2, he is facing difficulties and also having seepage problem and earlier the ground floor surrounding his flat, there was a garden and the same has been removed and now making use of this for other purpose and he paid higher amount looking into the garden, which was surrounding the plot he purchased. Hence, he may be permitted to make the garden restraining to the defendants. The counsel also vehemently contend that he is ready to pay maintenance from this month under protest. The Trial Court committed error in rejecting the I.A.No.2 coming to the conclusion that the appellants/plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie grounds to seek the relief sought in I.A.No.2, the very approach is erroneous. Hence it requires to interference.

6. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants in other appeal also vehemently contends that the trial Court committed an error while granting an order of injunction. The learned counsel also vehemently contends that the plaintiff is not paying any maintenance charges. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the copy of the sale deed under which they have purchased the plot in year 2012, particularly in column No.18 (4) and (6) of the document, wherein it is specifically mentioned with regard to the payment of maintenance charges and getting permission from association to do repair work and also specific clause is there, under which he is bound to become a member of a association. When such condition is imposed the trial Court has ought not to have granted relief of temporary injunction permitting the plaintiffs to carry out the work. Hence the Trial Court committed an error and set aside the order passed on the I.A.No.1 passed in the suit and hence, it required interference.

7. Having heard appellants/plaintiffs counsel and also the appellants/defendants counsel with regard to the both I.A.No.1 and I.A.No.2, the point would arise for considerations of this Court are follows.

i. Whether the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, i.e., I.A.No.1, in O.S.No.4567/2023?

ii. Whether the trial Court committed an error in granting relief of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff in I.A.No.1?

iii. Whether the same requires interference of this Court?

8. Having heard the respective counsels, it is not in dispute that plaintiff is the owner of plots which are mentioned in the suit schedule properties. The contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants are interfering in their possession and not allowing