(1.) PETITIONER /Plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 99/2009 against respondents/Defendants in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.,) Bangarpet, for the relief of permanent injunction and consequential reliefs in respect of suit schedule property. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 have filed separate written statements and counter claims. The Plaintiff has filed objections for the written statements and counter claims. Along with the plaint, the Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure to grant an order of temporary injunction, restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The Defendants 2, 3 and 4 filed I.A Nos. 5, 6 and 7 respectively under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of temporary injunction, restraining the Plaintiff from interfering with the agricultural operations earned on in the written statement schedule properties. The trial court having found prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and hardship being caused to the Plaintiff, allowed I.A. No. 2 and rejected I.A. Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Aggrieved, the Defendants filed appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 Code of Civil Procedure The appellate court by judgment dated 29.03.2010 has allowed the appeal in part. The common order passed by the trial court, on I.As 2, 5 to 7 impugned before it, was set -aside and the parties to the suit have been directed to maintain status -quo in respect of the suit schedule and written statement schedule properties. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff has filed this writ petition.
(2.) SRI Rajashekhar. K, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that, the court below has acted unjustly, erroneously and illegally in passing the impugned judgment, whereby it has set -aside the just and equitable order passed by the trial court. Learned Counsel submits that, the Petitioner was employed in BGML, had earnings of his own, out of which the suit schedule properties were purchased and that, he has been leaving separately from 23.06.1981 and the purchase of the suit properties were after his separation from the family and in the circumstances, the just and equitable order passed by the trial court ought not to have been interfered with, while passing the impugned judgment.
(3.) I have perused the writ petition papers.