Judgment:
1. Appellants who are the plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.603/2012 seeking for declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule 'A' property and also declare that two sale deeds dated 6-8-2002 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are null and void and also sought for declaration, declaring that the GPA elated 20-4-1989 executed by Mallappa in favour of the first defendant is null and void. Further, the plaintiffs have filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up construction and also alienating the suit schedule property.
2. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that the suit has been filed on 18-1-2012. the case had come up before the court on 20-1-2012. On that day, the court had issued notice to the respondents. Thereafter, the matter was posted on various dates, after the appearance of the defendants the matter was adjourned for one reason or the other. The apprehension of the plaintiffs is that defendants 2 and 3 are intended to putting up construction in order to plead equity in the suit If they are allowed to put up construction, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable injury and hardship and sought for an injunction order. That application has not yet been considered. Hence the plaintiffs filed this appeal seeking direction to the Trial Court to consider the said application and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the case is posted for further consideration on 31-3-2012 and a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to consider the said application and dispose of the same on the said date.
4. I nave carefully considered the arguments addressed by the parties.
5. It is the apprehension of the plaintiffs that on the basis of the power of attorney executed by Mallappa in favour of defendant No. 1, the first defendant executed two sale deeds in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and they are intending to putting up construction. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the above suit, if the defendants 2 and 3 are allowed to put up construction, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable injuries and sought for injunction.
6. The Trial Court though issued notice to the respondents, has not taken up the said application for consideration, even though the defendants have entered appearance. In view of that, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal.
7. On considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. I feel that when the plaintiffs have expressed their apprehension that the first defendant has no right over the suit schedule property and he has sold the property in favour of defendants 2 and 3. when the plaintiffs alleges that defendants 2 and 3 are putting up construction, it is for the Trial Court, to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and adjourning the matter will adversely affect the interest of the appellants in view of that, the Trial Court is directed to consider the applications I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and pass appropriate orders on 31?t March 2012.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.