Judgment : 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff before the trial court aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. filed by it seeking an order of temporary injunction against the 2nd respondent herein from alienating the suit property. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant filed the suit before the trial court stating that the appellant acquired 14 acres and 21.38 guntas of land (6.33.122 square feet) under various sale deeds and after getting the katha changed in respect of the said land, the appellant company formed a lay out known as “ALFA PROMENADE” consisting of approximately 155 sites of various dimensions and the plaintiff company disposed off approximately 54 sites to various purchasers whose names on the date of the sale deed having been mentioned in the plaint itself. Subsequently, the 1st respondent herein claiming to be one of the Directors of the company, sold the entire extent of land which included the sites already sold in favour of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was in the process of alienating suit ‘A’ schedule property to third parties so as to defeat the rights of the plaintiff company as well as the purchasers of sites from plaintiff company and as such, the relief of injunction was sought in the I.A. filed, whereas the main prayer in the suit itself was to declare that the 1st respondent herein has no right to represent the plaintiff company as a Director and to declare the sale deed executed by the 1st respondent in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property in favour of the 2nd respondent as not binding on the plaintiff company and also for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘B’ property which consists of remaining sites which the company had earlier not sold. 3. 3. The respondent no.2 defended the suit of the plaintiff by contending that one Babu M. Koshy who claims to be one of the Directors of the plaintiff company was removed from the company and in respect of his removal, the said Director has also initiated proceedings before the High Court of Chennai in C.C.No.277/03 and therefore he sought among other things, the relief of declaring his removal from the Directorship as null and void and it is the further case of the respondent that subsequently the 1st respondent was appointed as Director of the company by the share holders on 28.2.02 and therefore above mentioned Babu Koshy could not have filed the present suit as he has no locus standi to act on behalf of the company and further the 1st respondent executed the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent on 12.7.04 and the present suit is filed only in 2005 and Babu Koshy has suppressed the fact of he having filed the suit before the High Court of Chennai challenging his removal from the company and as the sale deed was executed by one of the Directors of the plaintiff company i.e. 1st respondent herein, question of granting any relief to the plaintiff company does not arise. The very same grounds were also urged in the objections to I.A.I. 4. Learned Judge of the trial court after hearing both sides, rejected the I.A.I. filed by the appellant herein, but at the same time directed the 2nd respondent not to alienate the sites which had already been sold to various persons under registered sale deeds, until further orders. 5. I have heard learned counsel Sri. Ganapati hedge for the plaintiff company and learned counsel Sri. A. Madhusudhana Rao for the respondent no.2 and perused the order of the trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that it is not in dispute that the entire suit ‘A’ schedule property belongs to the company and it is also not in dispute that the plaintiff company had sold certain sites (54 cites) to various persons in the year 1998 itself. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that it is not in dispute that the entire suit ‘A’ schedule property belongs to the company and it is also not in dispute that the plaintiff company had sold certain sites (54 cites) to various persons in the year 1998 itself. The main grievance of the appellant is that the 1st respondent herein claiming to be one of the Directors of the plaintiff company could not have sold the entire extent of land once again which also included sites already sold to the 2nd respondent and this fact was not taken into account by the trial court while rejecting the I.A. filed by the appellant plaintiff. The sale deed executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the entire ‘A’ schedule property is not in dispute. But the question is, whether the said 1st respondent could have sold the entire ‘A’ schedule property which also comprised of sites which were sold much earlier to that by the very company itself to various purchasers. Secondly, whether Babu Koshy whose removal from the Directorship is subject matter of proceedings before the suit in High Court, Chennai, could represent the appellant before the trial court, is also a matter that requires to be considered by the trial court on merits. As far as grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff company is concerned, the above admitted facts indicate that the entire ‘A’ schedule property comprising of 14 acres and 21.38 guntas of land which later was converted into sites numbering 155, had been sold by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent and in that circumstance, whether the order of injunction could have been granted in favour of the appellant restraining the 2nd respondent from alienating the sites other than the appellant which have been sold in favour of the purchasers by the company itself. These are all matters which requires examination by the trial court and as the admitted facts reveal that there were no sites in possession of the 2nd respondent subsequent to the sale in view of the sale deed executed by the 2nd respondent on 23.1.2007 the question of grant of temporary injunction in favour of the appellant company therefore does not arise. But however in view of the relief sought by the appellant also includes, declaring the sale effected by the respondent as null and void and as the learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that various purchasers of sites have also filed suits and have obtained interim orders in their favour (in respect of sites sold earlier by the 1st respondent), the trial court therefore will have to consider all these aspects of the matter and hence the following order is passed. 7. The trial court shall dispose of the suit itself at the earliest and not later than one year from the date of the order’s receipt and the trial court shall also consider the aforesaid contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the parties while framing necessary issues and the trial court shall also consider the issue raised by the learned counsel for the respondent as regards locus standi of Babu koshy to represent the company as one of the Directors. So far as the application that is filed as regards the violation of the order passed by this court by the 2nd respondent herein, the said application shall be de-linked from the case and it shall be dealt separately and in so far as hearing of that application is concerned, it shall be called on 25.3.2010. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.