Pingili Sumathi v. Imtiaz Hafeez Jahan & Ors.

…Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff Vs. Imtiaz Hafeez Jahan and others. …Respondents/Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR C.M.A.M.P.No. 784 of 2012 And C.M.A.No. 376 of 2012 Dated 27-04-2012 ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant who stated that the substantive miscellaneous appeal itself could be disposed of as the arguments in the interlocutory application and in the substantive appeal are identical. The appeal is directed against the decree and order 15-03-2012 in I.A.No. 1155 of 2011 in O.S.No. 121 of 2011 on the file of the learned II-Additional District Judge, Warangal. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit filed for declaration of title and a permanent injunction. I.A.No. 1155 of 2011 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents and their agents from raising any further construction of suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. On the admitted factual scenario, the respondents are in possession of the property whose title is claimed by the appellant. The Court below by the order impugned analyzed the material on record, exercised discretion and held that as the respondents had started construction in the suit schedule property much earlier to the filing of suit and the construction was at the finishing stage, no injunction restraining completion of construction should be granted as that could not be in accordance with the balance of convenience. We find no reason to disagree or fault the exercise of discretion by the Court below. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and in view of the dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory application – C.M.P.No. 784 of 2012 stands rejected. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ____________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Dated: 27-04-2012 Pvks/*