MD SHABBIR AHMED Vs. ZARRAR BIN ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.407 of 2005 in the Court of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He filed I.A.No.318 of 2004 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the said I .A., on 19-4-2004 and granted temporary injunction, in respect of 693 sq. yards at Ramnaspura, Hyderabad. The order became final, since no appeal was preferred against it.

(2.) The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.236 of 2005 under Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to restore possession of the suit schedule property to him. It was alleged that despite the subsistence of order of temporary injunction, the petitioners herein dispossessed him from the property on 30-6-2005, with the aid and assistance of respondents 2 to 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the I A, he stated necessary facts, leading to the filing of the application.

(3.) The 2nd petitionerfiled acounter affidavit stating inter alia that the 1st respondent was never in possession of the suit schedule property and he made reference to various proceedings that are pending before different Courts. He pleaded that he purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 21-5-2001, and that ever since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also his case that he leased the property to one M/s. Naseer Baig, and Iqbal Khan, on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-, but on finding that the said two individuals were involved in criminal cases, he discontinued the lease and resumed the property. He denied the allegation that he dispossessed the 1st respondent from the suit schedule property. Objection was raised, as to the maintainability of the application. On behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 herein, a separate counter affidavit was filed. They stated that they have nothing todo with the property, and they were impleaded in the proceedings without any basis.