Mirza Taimur Baig Najam vs Baby Saneela
2022 Latest Caselaw 7070 Tel

       THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                         AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.80 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr.SA,J)

      This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1

of C.P.C, is filed by the appellants/respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6,

8 and 9/defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, aggrieved by the

order and decree, dated 25.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.1913 of

2019 in O.S.No.986 of 2019 by the learned IX Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, wherein the subject

Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2

herein/petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of

C.P.C seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the

appellants herein/respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9/

defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and respondent Nos.3, 4

and 5 to 10 herein/respondent Nos.3, 7 and 10 to 15/defendant

Nos.3, 7 and 10 to 15, or persons through them from

proceeding with construction activity or changing the nature of

petition schedule property, was disposed of by the Court below

directing both parties to maintain status quo during the

pendency of the suit proceedings.

                                 2                      Dr. SA,J & NBK,J
                                                      CMA No.80 of 2022

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri J.Prabhakar, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned

counsel for the appellants, Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned

counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Shyam S. Agrawal,

learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 6 and perused the

record. As per the cause title, respondent Nos.3 to 10 are not

necessary parties to this appeal.

3. The appellants herein are respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8

and 9 in the subject I.A.No.1913 of 2019/defendant Nos.1, 2, 4,

5, 6, 8 and 9 in the O.S.No.986 of 2019; the respondent Nos.1

and 2 herein are the petitioners in the subject I.A.No.1913 of

2019/plaintiffs in O.S.No.986 of 2019; and the respondent

Nos.3, 4 and 5 to 10 herein are the respondent Nos.3, 7 and 10

to 15 in subject I.A.No.1913 of 2019/the defendant Nos.3, 7 and

10 to 15 in the O.S.No.986 of 2019.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/

respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 would contend that the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/petitioners/plaintiffs are the

children of respondent Nos.6 and 9 herein but the subject suit

for partition and separate possession was filed by their paternal

grandfather-Quader Hussain on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

2/plaintiffs claiming as a Guardian, who has no locus standi. It is

further contended that when the father is alive, mother cannot

be appointed as natural guardian of respondent No.1 and accept

the gift on her behalf. Under Mohammedan law, the father of a

minor is the natural guardian. In this regard, the learned Senior

Counsel relied upon the decisions in Syed Shah Ghulam

Ghouse Mohiuddin and others v. Syed Shah Ahmed

Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri (died) by L.Rs and others1 and

Gulamhussain Kutubuddin Maner v. Abdulrashid

Abdulrajak Maner and others2 and contended that under

Mohammedan Law, when the father is alive, he is only the legal

guardian of the minor and no other relation is entitled to act as

guardian of the minor. The respondent Nos.6 to 9 herein

colluded with the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein

and got filed the subject suit. The respondent Nos.1 and 2

herein have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule

property. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 set up a claim in the subject

suit for partition and separate possession stating that under

Ex.P.2-registered gift settlement deed dated 03.12.2016, 160

sq.yards of land was gifted to them by their grandfather,

(1971) 1 Supreme Court Cases 597

(2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507 4 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

wherein each of them got 80 sq.yards but the said property is

different from the property given for development under Ex.P.1-

development agreement-cum-general power of attorney dated

29.05.2018. The respondent No.6 along with his mother i.e,

respondent No.7 acquired 486 sq.yards + 80 sq.yards of land,

respectively, total admeasuring 566 sq.yards under Ex.P.2-gift

settlement deed dated 03.12.2016. The respondent No.6

acquired 385 sq.yards of land under Ex.P.3-settlement deed

dated 09.06.2016 from Mohammed Rasheeduddin and out of

said land, the respondent No.6 gifted 162 sq.yards to his sister

and wife i.e, respondent Nos.8 and 9, respectively vide Ex.P.4-

gift settlement deed dated 09.12.2016 and retained the

remaining land i.e, 223 sq.yards with him. Under Ex.P.1-

Development Agreement-cum-GPA, the respondent Nos.6 to 9

entered into Development Agreement with the appellants and

respondent Nos.3 to 5 in respect of total land admeasuring 951

sq.yards (566 sq.yards + 162 sq.yards + 223 sq.yards) and as

such the land of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs admeasuring

160 sq.yards is different and it is not covered by Ex.P.1-

Development Agreement-cum-GPA. Therefore, seeking partition

of the property covered under Ex.P.1 admeasuring 951 sq.yards,

is illegal and arbitrary. In Ex.P.1-development agreement dated 5 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

29.05.2018, the property claimed by the respondent Nos.1 and

2/plaintiffs is specifically omitted and there are recitals to that

effect. Though an extent of 951 sq.yards of land was given for

development, GHMC issued sanctioned plan for 887.48 sq.yards

only and the remaining land is left vacant. There is specific

clause in the Development Agreement (clause 34) that if any

dispute arises, such dispute shall be resolved through the

Arbitrator. Respondent Nos.6 to 9 filed Arbitration Application

No.104/2021 and the same is pending. They are unsuccessful in

obtaining any interim order against the appellants from

proceeding with the construction. Further, respondent Nos.6 to 9

also filed Arbitration Application under Section 9 of Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, before the III Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide O.P.No.86/2019, wherein an order

was passed not to alienate the property. The grandfather of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 having received an amount of

Rs.1,87,00,000/- before entering into the subject Development

Agreement dated 29.05.2018 towards advance refundable

amount and executed a receipt, started litigation and harassing

the appellants by way of lodging false complaint before the

Municipal Corporation. It is also contended that the respondent

Nos.6 to 9 filed W.P.No.21349/2019 before this Court, wherein 6 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

this Court vide order dated 27.09.2019 was pleased to pass an

order directing to take necessary action on the explanation given

by the respondent Nos.6 to 9 and ensure that construction over

the subject property is made in accordance with sanctioned plan.

The respondent Nos.6 to 9 being unsuccessful in the Writ

Petitions and O.P.No.86/2009 had resorted to filing of the

present suit by the minors (respondent Nos.1 and 2) through

their paternal grandfather Quader Hussain. The respondent

Nos.6 to 9 were unsuccessful in getting the permission cancelled.

They have resorted to multiple tactics to restrain the appellants

from raising construction in terms of the development

agreement dated 29.05.2018 and approved plan. The appellants

are making construction in accordance with the approved plan.

After the commencement of construction and when multiple

structures are raised over the suit property, a false claim has

been set out by the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who

received substantial amount. The appellants had invested huge

money and raised construction upto the level of stilt + 3 floors.

On instructions, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the

appellants would not claim any equities in the event of

respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are successful in obtaining a

decree for partition and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 can claim 7 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

their share on the constructed premises. The subject suit is a

collusive suit. It is filed only to harass the appellants/developers.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.6 and 9 belong

to one family. The grandfather and the parents of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are operating through minors

(respondent Nos.1 and 2) in order to harass and cause

irreparable loss to the appellants/developers. In this regard,

learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision in Mandali

Ranganna and others v. T. Ramachandra and others3,

wherein it was held that while considering an application for

grant of injunction, the Court should not only take into

consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz.

existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and

irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the

conduct of the parties. The learned Senior Counsel thus prayed

to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and decree

dated 25.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.1913 of 2019 in O.S.No.986

of 2019 by the Court below.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs would contend that under Ex.P.2-gift

(2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 1 8 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

settlement deed dated 03.12.2016 bearing document

No.6449/2016, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs were given

an extent of 80 sq.yards each, totaling 160 sq.yards and the

respondent No.6/father of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, was

given 486 Sq.yards and respondent No.7/wife of the Quader

Hussain (mother of respondent No.6) was given 80 sq.yards.

The aforesaid properties are part and parcel of House bearing

No.6-2-1 part(old) and New Municipal No.6-2-1 & 1/1,

admeasuring 726 sq.yards, situated at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

Under the said gift settlement deed dated 03.12.2016, the

ownership and possession of the donees is joint. So the house

bearing No.6-2-1 part(old) and new Municipal No.6-2-1 & 1/1, is

in joint ownership and possession of the respondent Nos.1 and 2

and their father (respondent No.6) and grandmother

(respondent No.7). The subject property (land admeasuring 160

sq.yards) was gifted for the welfare of minors i.e, respondent

Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. The respondent Nos.6 and 9 assured the

grandfather of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs that they

will protect the property. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs

are not parties to the Ex.P.1-Development Agreement dated

29.05.2018 nor their grandfather had received any amount from

the developers. There is no collusion in between the grandfather 9 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and other respondents.

Since the land admeasuring 160 sq.yards was given to the

respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs (each 80 sq.yards) for their

welfare and development, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 have no

right to give the said property for development. Though there is

an order dated 12.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.24673 of 2019

(Ex.R.2) to complete the construction as per the sanctioned

plan, that will not bind the minors i.e, respondent Nos.1 and

2/plaintiffs. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have not

suppressed any material facts. When the grandfather of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs has gifted the property for the

welfare of the minors (respondent Nos.1 and 2) and when the

parents of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e, respondent Nos.6 and

9 failed to protect the property gifted to the respondent Nos.1

and 2, the grandfather of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs

has every right to represent the respondent Nos.1 and

2/plaintiffs as their next friend and file the subject suit.

Therefore, filing of the subject suit by the respondent Nos.1 and

2/minors being represented by paternal grandfather, to protect

their interest cannot be faulted and it cannot be considered as a

ground to dismiss the subject Interlocutory Application, which is

filed for ad interim injunction. It is submitted that in the 10 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

approved layout plan, the land admeasuring 160 sq.yards was

shown on the extreme Northern side but in fact the property of

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is part and parcel of House bearing

No.6-2-1 part(old) and new Municipal No.6-2-1 & 1/1. The

nature of the suit is for partition and separate possession and if

the construction work is proceeded with and completed by the

developers, that will jeopardize the interest of the minors

(respondent Nos.1 and 2) and causes irreparable loss to them

and the very object of filing of the suit will be defeated. The

Court below having dealt with the contentions raised by both

sides was pleased to direct both parties to maintain status quo

during the pendency of the suit proceedings. Since the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not parties to the development

agreement dated 29.05.2018, the submission of the appellants

that they will not claim any equities in the event of respondent

Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs succeeding the subject suit, is

unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 6 would

submit that respondent Nos.6 and 9 are parents of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. There is no partition and

separate possession in respect of the properties belonging to the 11 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

respondent Nos.1 and 2. Without there being such partition, no

structures over the undivided property shall be made. If the

construction work is proceeded with, the interest of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 will be jeopardized and ultimately

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that

arises for determination in this appeal is:

"Whether the Court below is justified in passing the impugned order and decree, dated 25.01.2022 in I.A.No.1913 of 2019 in O.S.No.986 of 2019?"

8. POINT: Ordinarily, the three main principles which govern

the grant or refusal of injunction are (a) prima facie case;

(b)balance of convenience; and, (c) irreparable injury. In grant

and refusal of injunction, pleadings and documents play vital

role. In the broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative

for the Court to carefully analyse the pleadings and the

documents on record and only on that basis the Court must

adjudge the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case. The

Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should

exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of

substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the 12 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

plaintiffs, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that it

is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is

granted. Only on weighing competing possibilities or

probabilities of likelihood of injury, an injunction would be

granted. The Court should not interfere only because the

property is a very valuable one. In dealing with such matters,

the Court must make all endeavours to protect the interest of

the parties by balancing the conveniences and inconveniences.

In addition to the basic principles, temporary injunction, being

an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be

exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame

and he approaches the Court with clean hands.

9. In the instant case, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs

are being represented by their paternal grandfather-Quader

Hussain, who executed Ex.P.2-gift settlement deed dated

03.12.2016, bearing document No.6449/2016, and settled the

scheduled property i.e, House bearing No.6-2-1 part(old) and

New Municipal No.6-2-1 & 1/1, admeasuring 726 sq.yards,

situated at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, to the respondent Nos.1, 2, 6

and 7 (Setlees) in the following manner:

                               13                     Dr. SA,J & NBK,J
                                                    CMA No.80 of 2022

i) To the respondent No.6, admeasuring 486 sq.yards.

ii) To the respondent No.7, admeasuring 80 sq.yards

iii) To the respondent No.1, admeasuring 80 sq.yards

iv) To the respondent No.2, admeasuring 80 sq.yards

to have and to hold the same as absolute owners and

possessors. The respondent No.6 along with his mother i.e,

respondent No.7 acquired 486 sq.yards + 80 sq.yards of land,

respectively, total admeasuring 566 sq.yards under Ex.P.2. In

addition to the above land, the respondent No.6 acquired 385

sq.yards of land under Ex.P.3-settlement deed dated 09.06.2016

from Mohammed Rasheeduddin and out of said land, the

respondent No.6 gifted 162 sq.yards to his sister and wife i.e,

respondent Nos.8 and 9, respectively vide Ex.P.4-gift settlement

deed dated 09.12.2016 and retained the remaining land i.e, 223

sq.yards with him. Under Ex.P.1-Development Agreement-cum-

GPA, the respondent Nos.6 to 9 entered into Development

Agreement with the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 in

respect of Municipal Door Nos.6-2-1 & 1/1 (part) and 6-2-1/A6,

admeasuring 951 sq.yards (566 sq.yards + 162 sq.yards + 223

sq.yards), situated at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. It is the case of

the paternal grandfather of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that

respondent Nos.6 and 9, who are the parents of the respondent 14 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

Nos.1 and 2 had assured him that they will protect the interest

of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/minors but the property

belonging to the respondent Nos.1 and 2/minors is also given for

development. It is the contention of the appellants/developers

before this Court that the property belonging to the respondent

Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs was not given for any development and it

is situated on the extreme Northern side of the property given

for development, which is left vacant. The property covered

under Ex.P.2-gift settlement deed dated 03.12.2016, is falling in

between 30ft wide road on Northern side and 25ft. wide road on

the Southern side. A perusal of the approved plan filed before

this Court reveals that the land admeasuring 160 sq.yards

belonging to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is shown on the

northern side but Ex.P.2 reveals otherwise. On verification of

documents (Exs.P.1 and P.2) placed on record reveal that the

land given to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is forming part of the land

shown in the development agreement and it clearly

demonstrates that the ongoing construction is over the

undivided property of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and

respondent Nos.6 and 7 (covered under Ex.P.2).

                               15                     Dr. SA,J & NBK,J
                                                    CMA No.80 of 2022

10. Though it is contended that the grandfather of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs had received Rs.1,87,00,000/-

and entrusted the property for development under Ex.P.1-

development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated

29.05.2018, there is no single document to substantiate that any

amount was paid to the paternal grandfather of the respondent

Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and he is a party to the said development

agreement dated 29.05.2018. There is no much dispute with

regard to the joint interest of the respondent Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7

over the house bearing Municipal No.6-2-1 part (old) and New

Municipal No.6-2-1 & 1/1, admeasuring 726 sq.yards, situated at

Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, covered under Ex.P.2-gift settlement

deed dated 03.12.2016. Out of said 726 sq.yards, the share of

the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs is 160 sq.yards, which is

part and parcel of sanctioned plan, where the construction is

going on. All the donees (respondent Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7) under

Ex.P.2-gift settlement deed dated 03.12.2016 have joint interest

over the total extent of 726 sq.yards. When the property

covered under Ex.P.2 is not divided or separated by metes and

bounds in between the donees, all the parties have joint

ownership and possession over the land admeasuring 726

sq.yards. Therefore, the contention that respondent Nos.6 and 7 16 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

have right to give their land admeasuring 566 sq.yards (486

sq.yards + 80 sq.yards) is unsustainable. Further, there are

patent violations in proceeding with the construction. Admittedly,

vide order dated 12.11.2019 passed by this Court in

W.P.No.24673 of 2019, the developer i.e, appellant No.1 herein

was permitted to go ahead with the construction as per the

approved sanction plan but the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs

are not parties to the said writ petition. Therefore, the said order

would not bind the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs.

Furthermore, to protect the substantial interest of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2/minors, the paternal grandfather has

filed the subject suit on their behalf as he had gifted the

property to them under Ex.P.2-gift settlement deed dated

03.12.2016. Whether the paternal grandfather of the respondent

Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs has locus standi to file the subject suit as

their next friend, needs determination in the subject suit after

full-fledged trial. In this appeal, it is not appropriate to devolve

upon such issue. In the course of submissions, it is brought to

the notice of this Court that said aspect was also challenged by

the developers and the developers are unsuccessful in that

regard.

                                   17                        Dr. SA,J & NBK,J
                                                           CMA No.80 of 2022

11. The other contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants by relying on the decisions in Syed Shah Ghulam

Ghouse Mohiuddin's case (1 supra) and Gulamhussain

Kutubuddin Maner's case (2 supra), is that under

Mohammedan Law, when the father is alive, he is only the legal

guardian of the minor and no other relation is entitled to act as

guardian of the minor. As per Ex.P.2-gift settlement deed dated

03.12.2016, the respondent No.1/minor was gifted 80 sq.yards

of land and the mother i.e, respondent No.9 acted as legal

guardian and accepted the gift on behalf of minor. If the analogy

projected by the learned Senior Counsel is accepted, then the

property gifted to the respondent No.1/minor under Ex.P.2-gift

settlement deed dated 03.12.2016 would remain with the donor

i.e, paternal grandfather. However, in this appeal, it is not

appropriate to devolve upon that issue. It is open to the trial

Court to determine the same after full-fledged trial.

12. The material documents on record establish that the

respondents No.6 to 9 had entered into Ex.P.1-development

agreement dated 29.05.2018 with appellants and the respondent

Nos.3 to 5 to an extent of 951 Sq.yards. Thereafter, necessary

permission was obtained for construction. Ex.P.5 is the approved 18 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

sanction plan, which shows that permission was given for only

an extent of 885 Sq.yds to construct stilt + three floors. On the

allegation that the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5

proceeding with the construction by violating the approved plan,

the GHMC had issued notice dated 06.08.2019 under Section

452 (1) and 461 (1). The appellants and the respondent Nos.3 to

5 without having any right over the entire extent of 1111 Sq.Yds

had displayed notice board for 1111 Sq.Yds, which includes the

minors share (land admeasuring 160 sq.yards gifted to the

respondent Nos.1 and 2). Exs.P6 and P9-photographs

substantiates the same. Ex.P10-simple mortgage deed was

executed with GHMC on 20-07-2018 showing the extent as 885

Sq.yds of land. Admittedly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not

entered into any development agreement or any conveyance in

favour of the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5. So the

development agreement dated 29.05.2018 and the permission

obtained by the appellants under Ex.P.5 would not bind them.

There are disputes in between the developers and the

respondent Nos.6 to 9/owners. Since there is no partition in

between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.6 and

7, by metes and bounds, in accordance with law and as the

respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have joint ownership and 19 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

possession over the land covered under Ex.P.2-gift settlement

deed dated 03.12.2016 and since the subject suit for partition

and separate possession is pending, it is not appropriate to allow

the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein to go ahead

with the construction even though they have given undertaking

that they will not claim any equities. The property belonging to

the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs is required to be protected.

Furthermore, completion of construction would further lead to

multiplicity of litigation in between the parties and jeopardize the

interest of the minors (respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs), which

is not yet determined in the subject suit. There is no demur with

regard to the decision in Mandali Ranganna (3 supra) relied

upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while considering an

application for grant of injunction, the Court should not only take

into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz.

existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and

irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the

conduct of the parties. In the instant case, respondent Nos.1 and

2/plaintiffs are minors and hence, no malice can be attributed to

them. They have no questionable conduct. Further, the Court

below having dealt with the several contentions raised by both 20 Dr. SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.80 of 2022

sides and by examining the documents placed before it, was

pleased to direct both the parties to maintain status quo during

the pendency of the suit proceedings.

13. For the foregoing discussion, there are no circumstances to

interfere with the impugned order and decree, dated 25.01.2022

passed in I.A.No.1913 of 2019 in O.S.No.986 of 2019 by the

learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

This appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that

the Court below shall not get influenced by any of the

observations made in this order and dispose of the subject suit

on merits, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 28.12.2022 scs