JUDGMENT : The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order dated 28.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.2243 of 2016 in O.S. No.496 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed by the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed the suit in O.S No.496 of 2016 seeking for the following relief’s: “(i) to remove the first defendant as a trustee of the first plaintiff Trust; (ii) Grant permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their men and agents from indulging in anti-trust activities by addressing letters and complaints to statutory authorities and press against plaintiffs and other trustees of the first plaintiff trust; (iii) For costs and such other relief’s as the Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has partly allowed the I.A.No.2243 of 2016. The relief claimed by the appellants in the above I.A. is as follows: “This petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to grant temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit restraining the respondents/defendants, their men and agents from indulging in anti-trust activities by addressing letters and complaints to Statutory Authorities and Press against plaintiffs and other trustees of the first plaintiff Trust, except with the leaves and/or permission of this Court in the interest of justice.” 4. On consideration of the submission of both the counsel, the trial Court passed order in I.A. as follows: “24. In the result, this petition is allowed granting temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit restraining the respondents/defendants, their men and agents from indulging in anti-trust activities by addressing letters and complaints to statutory authorities and press against petitioners and other trustees of the Trust, except with the leave and/or permission of this Court.” 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 6. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submits that lodging the complaints to the statutory authorities is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and therefore the order passed by the lower appellate Court, is not in accordance with law. 7. 6. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submits that lodging the complaints to the statutory authorities is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and therefore the order passed by the lower appellate Court, is not in accordance with law. 7. The main submission of learned Senior counsel is that the observations made by the Court below are not in accordance with law as they are restraining the respondents from making any complaints to the statutory authorities. The order of the trial Court is in violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the trial Court not only prohibited the respondents from lodging complaints to the statutory authorities against the trust, but also put restriction on the petitioners that except with the leave of the Court, the petitioners cannot make any complaints to the statutory authorities. 8. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellants are indulging in the anti-trust activities by sending letters to various statutory authorities and press, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is perfectly justified. 9. On consideration of the arguments of both the counsel, it is obvious that giving false complaints to the statutory authorities or defamatory notifications issued in the press are no doubt punishable under various acts. The petitioners have got various other remedies under the statutes to prosecute the offenders for giving false complaints and issuing false notifications to the press. 10. Therefore, there is no need for the court to exercise the powers vested with various statutory authorities like police, income tax department, civil Court and it is also not necessary to decide whether the complainant is having element of anti-trust activities or not before lodging the complaint. 11. In fact the interlocutory application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 by the appellants/plaintiffs to restrain the respondents/defendants from indulging in anti-trust activities by addressing letters and complaints to statutory authority and press agents petitioners/plaintiffs and other trustees of the trust, except with the leave of the court. The trial Court has allowed the interlocutory application granting the relief prayed for. 12. The trial Court has allowed the interlocutory application granting the relief prayed for. 12. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff who has filed O.S No.496 of 2016 for the following relief: “(i) to remove the first defendant as a trustee of the first plaintiff Trust; (ii) Grant permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their men and agents from indulging in anti-trust activities by addressing letters and complaints to statutory authorities and press against plaintiffs and other trustees of the first plaintiff trust; (iii) For costs and such other reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 13. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is challenging the impugned order passed in the I.A.No.2243 of 2016 in O.S.No.496 of 2016 on the ground that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass a restraint order directing the appellants not to lodge any complaint to any statutory authority, and in case any complaint to be lodged it should be with the leave of the Court. In fact lodging a complaint to the statutory authority is a provision made by each statute. The Courts cannot interfere in lodging complaints by the individuals whenever there is violation of any of their rights. 14. The Courts have to see the prima facie case and balance of convenience and irreparable loss whenever the injunction is granted. In the instant case, the apprehension of the appellants are that the respondents may lodge a false complaint and issue publication in newspapers which are anti-trust activities and therefore sought for grant of injunction. 15. The trial Court has passed an order granting an injunction against the appellants herein not to lodge any complaints which are involved in anti-trust activities. The complaints, if they contained ingredients, as required by the statute to prove any violation of law then it is the concerned statutory authority which has to take action on consideration of the ingredients of the complaints. It is not for the Court to go into each complaint and decide whether the complaint is having allegation of any anti-trust activities. It is beyond the scope of the petition. The relief claimed in the petition cannot be granted as it is touching the merits of the suit. It requires to go into merits of the suit to decide whether the allegations mentioned in the complaint are anti-trust activities or not. It is beyond the scope of the petition. The relief claimed in the petition cannot be granted as it is touching the merits of the suit. It requires to go into merits of the suit to decide whether the allegations mentioned in the complaint are anti-trust activities or not. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to grant injunction in this case restraining from addressing letters and complaints to statutory authorities against the plaintiffs or other trustees of the 1st plaintiff trust. In case, if the respondents are involved in anti-trust activities by addressing letters and complaints to statutory authorities and press against the plaintiffs that is a subject matter to be decided by the respective statutory authorities who receive those complaints. The remedies are available to the appellants in case if they lodge any false and frivolous complaints against the trust activities and making publication in newspapers in that regard. The appellants have got appropriate remedies available to approach the authorities whenever there is a complaint with allegations about indulging in anti-trust activities by respondents. 16. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.2243 of 2016 in respect of para-24, is hereby set aside. 17. With the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.