THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CMA NO.562 OF 2024 Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.S. Suneel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Mr. B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Shyam S Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3-5 and

11-13.

JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) arises out of an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (‘Trial Court’) on 05.09.2024 in I.A.No.504 of 2022 in O.S.No.1042 of 2022 filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the appellant/defendant No.9 in the Suit and the respondent Nos.3 to 13/defendants and their men from alienating the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the Suit.

2. The appellant claims to be the builder in respect of a part of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property consists of Acs.21.02 gts.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has constructed on Acs.7.00 gts. out of the Acs.21.02 gts of land.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs submits that the appellant/defendant No.9 is violating the orders passed by the Trial Court and continuing with the construction.

5. Upon hearing the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the order passed by the Trial Court on 05.09.2024 partly allowing the plaintiffs’ I.A. and restraining the appellant/defendant No.9 and respondent Nos.3 to 13/defendants from alienating (or) further alienating the suit schedule property only to the extent of the plaintiffs’ share pending disposal of the Suit, we are of the view that the CMA can be disposed of by clarifying the impugned order.

6. The concluding paragraph of the impugned order lacks clarity in terms of stating the exact area or extent of the share of the plaintiffs in the schedule property. As stated above, the suit schedule property consists of Acs.21.02 gts. The appellant has constructed on Acs.7.00 gts. out of the suit schedule property.

7. CMA No.562 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of by clarifying that the appellant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs’ rights to the extent of Acs.14.02 gts. of the suit schedule property in which construction has already taken place.

8. It is also recorded that Acs.14.02 gts. is presently free of any construction. The plaintiffs are hence protected in respect of Acs.14.02 gts. of the suit schedule property. The parties’ other grievances shall be addressed before the Trial Court in the pending proceedings. All steps including construction carried out by the appellant in respect of any open spaces which form part of the suit schedule property shall also be part of the protected area granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

All connected applications are disposed of.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 08.10.2025 NDS