The High Court · 2025

All the Defendants No. 1 to 6 are the R/o. Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad A/andal, Ranga Reddy District. Nlahmuda Begum, Wo. Mohd Burhan Miya, D/o. Late. Md. Amid Miya Aged about 42 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 2-19iA, Pedda Solipet Shabad, Hayathabad, Ranga Reddy District. B. Md Sana Fathima, Wo. Mohd Leeq Uddin, Late Md. Amid Miya Aged about 36 years. Occ. House Wife, R/o. 2-13lA, Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9. Mohd Rajiya, Wo. Shaik Ahmed, D/o. Late. Md. Amid Miya, Aged about 29 years, 0cc. Household,

10. Jahangir, S/o. lvld Amid lVliya, Aged about 45 Years, Occ. Worker, \ '1 1. Haju, S/o. Late. Md. Amid Miya, Aged about 35 Years, Occ. Empolyee,

12.Md. Shabbir, Late. Md. Amid. Miya, Aged about 34 Years, Occ. Driver, l3.Bismilla Begum, Wo. lVld. Amid lVliya, Aged about 65 Years, Occ. House Wife, Defendants No. 10 to 13 are R/o. 5-56, Kanakamamidi Village,Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

14. lmam Bibi, Wo. Md. Ghouse, D/o. Late. Fathe Ahmed, Aged about 57 Years, Occ. House Wife, Rio. Amberpet, Hyderabad.

15.A. Chandra Shekar Reddy, S/o. A. Sheshi Reddy, Aged about 63 Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No. 506, SMR Krishna Apartments, Sikh Road, Secunderabad-500009. -Y.ears,

16.M. Surendranath, S/o. [Vl. Keshavulu, Aged about 61 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat. No. 8-407, Vishnu Spendor Apmts, H.No. 8-3-979/1 to 6, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad-500073.

17. Chandramouli, S/o. Late Narsimha, Aged about 61 Years, Occ. Business' R/o. H.No. 13-6-460/40 and 41, Maheihnagar Colony, Near Gudimalkapur Vegetable Market, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-5000267. 1B.A.M.R lnfrastructures, Address. Flat No. 105, Century Apartments, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad Rept. by its M.D Mukkaram Ali-Siddiqui,^Slo.-l{{. Ali Siddiqui, age'd about 33 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. 18/3RT (10-3-557), Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. T.S. (Respondent No. 1 to 17 are not necessary parties to this appeal) ...RespondenUPetitioner IA NO: 'f OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass Ad lnterim lnjunction Order restrain the Respondent No. 1B from alienate the subject petition schedule property, pending disposal of the CMA.' SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that the part and Parcel of the Agricultural Land admeasuring Ac. 7-29 Guntas, situated at Surangal Village & Itllandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded by: in Sy.No. 360, G.P, Moinabad NORTH : Part of Sy.No. 360 SOUTH : Najeeb Nagar Shivar EAST WEST : Survey No. 361 Counsel for the Appellant : Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy : Part of Sy.No. 360 Counsel for Respondents : None appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVI L N'tISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.12 of 2025 JUDGIVIENT: tt)!r ll,'n c;, -\t't.lt .ta t P.5-4ll XOSHYT The present is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which has been filed under Order 43 Rule I of C.P.C., assailing the order, dated 12.12-2024 passed in I.A,No.639 of 2022 (old I.A.No.53 5 of 2021) in O.S.No.677 of 2022 (old O.S.No.77 of 2021) by the IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for shot 'the kial court'). t I

2. Heard Mr.R.Nagarjuna Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellant. I Perused the nraterial available on record.

3. Vide the impugned order. the learned trial court has rejected the I.A filed under Order XXXIX Rule I & 2 read with Section l5l of C.P.C seeking to granr ir,junction so far as further alienation of the suit schedule properly or L':-ertiri.J third o-:rty interest.

4. Having heard the contentions putforth by the leamed counsel for the appellant, $.e a.e o['ihe c()nsidried opinion that from the finding of the trial court irselt' ii is ci i.l,:r',ii-r ciear ihat rhe suit schedule property has been sold multiple tirnes- given thc' tact ieat the property has been sold multiple times over the ! elt's i.e.. r'i'.()r'!- thai ; 20 years, we are of the considered opinion 2 .:\ that the view taken by the trial court so far as refusing to grant the injunction and rejecting the I.A. does not seem to be in any manner erroneous or contrary to iaw. Thus, the present civil Miscellaneous Appeal being devoid ofmerits, it deserves to be and is accordingly rejected'

5. Nonetheless, if the appellant makes out a case on merits in the suit, the appellant can be suitably awarded. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending., if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO T REGISTRAR TION OFFICER I To,

1. The lX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar. 2. One CC to Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Njb/gh g HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 T , 1i lc r,L, i)a \ 'rt a ') \ 2OFEB2M ?, c.r ,^ F.9PA Tciit-) * JUDGMENT CMA.No.{ 2 ot 2025 REJECTING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS @c{'id x-