THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.343 OF 2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Order XXXXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., assailing the order, dated 16.02.2024 in I.A.No.42 of 2023 in O.S.No.1558 of 2022 on the file of learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. The aforementioned suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance directing the appellants to execute a registered Development Agreement- cum-General Power of Attorney in his favour in terms of Memorandum of Understanding, dated 13.01.2019 for development of suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, an application in I.A.No.42 of 2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C., was filed seeking for temporary injunction. Vide impugned order, I.A.No.42 of 2023 was allowed, which led to filing of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the appellants-defendants.

4. The whole suit revolved around the Memorandum of Understanding said to have been executed between the parties on 13.01.2019 whereunder the appellants- defendants, who are owners of land admeasuring Ac.21-39 guntas in Survey Nos.42, 53, 54, 55 and 67 in Buchiguda Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was assigned said property in favour of respondent-plaintiff for development.

5. At the time of execution of Memorandum of Understanding, an amount of Rs.1.5 crores was paid by respondent-plaintiff to the appellants-defendants as security deposit. The said amount is lying with the appellants since then. Meanwhile, a legal notice for the first time was issued on 27.04.2019 and subsequent one was also issued on 21.11.2019 whereby the appellants-defendants have expressed their unwillingness to further continue with the Memorandum of Understanding and also expressed their willingness to pay back Rs.1.5 crores that was received at the first instance. This led to filing of the suit along with interim application.

6. The injunction was sought only to the extent of restraining the appellants, who are land owners, from primarily transferring, alienating or encumbering the petition schedule property in favour of third parties.

7. During course of hearing, it has been learnt that the suit itself meanwhile progressed substantially for framing of issues and next date of hearing was given on 12.11.2024 with the previous date of hearing being 13.06.2024.

8. Having taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding, dated 13.01.2019 and also appreciating the contentions that have been advanced by counsel appearing for respondent-plaintiff, we are of the considered opinion that the nature of injunction granted by the trial Court in the midst of hearing of the matter is not going to prejudice to the interest of either of the parties rather it is more in the interest of two contesting parties to maintain status quo in respect of suit schedule property.

9. In the event of the interim injunction not being granted or getting vacated by this Court and if ultimately the suit stands decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and in the event of the appellants-defendants who are land owners alienating the said suit schedule property can give rise further series of litigations and further complications as well. If that is borne in mind, interim injunction granted by the trial Court under no circumstances can be said to be arbitrary, bad in law or contrary to the material available on record. For the said reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal thus stands dismissed.

10. However, at this juncture, we would like to observe that considering the