ACES PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS Vs. B.PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the respondents/defendants in O.S.No.1366 of 2018 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy. They have filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the Order passed by the trial Court in two different interlocutory applications in the same suit. C.M.A.No.493 of 2022 has been filed against the orders of the trial Court in I.A.No.1104 of 2018 and C.M.A.No.497 of 2022 has been filed against the order in I.A.No.1103 of 2018. In fact, the Court below disposed both the interlocutory applications by way of a common order dtd. 18/6/2021. As could be seen from the orders in the above referred interlocutory applications, the trial Court allowed the applications filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and restrained respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and also restraining the respondents/defendants from changing the nature of the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the above said common order, the petitioners who are respondent Nos.16 to 18 in the above petition filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, but on the same grounds. Since the trial Court disposed both interlocutory applications under a common order and as the petitioners moved the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals on the same grounds, it is proposed to dispose both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by a common order.

(2.) The appellants have filed the appeals on the following grounds: The order and decree of the trial Court is illegal, contrary to law and facts, Court ought to have dismissed both the interlocutory applications, but erroneously allowed the petitions without considering the material submitted by the appellants herein. The trial Court failed to see that the requirements of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of interim injunction was not established by the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs. The trial Court failed to see that respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the trial Court without any possession on the suit schedule property. They could not produce any documents to substantiate their ownership and legal position and that the trial Court ought to have seen that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have shown different boundaries in the schedule and tried to change the extent of the property. The appellants have further pleaded that though the respondents/plaintiffs have claimed that they are owners of Ac.4-23 gts., having acquired the same under a registered gift deed and that their donors have purchased the property under a Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.1092 of 1999, failed to produce the documents before the trial Court. The trial Court passed the impugned order restraining the appellants herein from changing the nature of the property. But, in fact, the appellants herein are the rightful owners and possessors of the property, thereby they sought for setting aside the order.

(3.) While the counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents were submitting the arguments, they brought it to the notice of this Court that earlier two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals vide C.M.A.No.405 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.411 of 2021 filed by defendant Nos.14 and 15 against the same order in the above referred suit were dismissed by a common order dtd. 21/9/2022. The respondents have filed a copy of the order of this Court in the above referred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. As per the above referred order, this Court came to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs made out a case for injunction to restrain all the respondents/defendants in the suit and having held that the trial Court correctly granted temporary injunction in both the interlocutory application dismissed the above referred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.