ORDER : 1. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.11.02.2020 in CMA.No.103 of 2018 of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad reversing the order dt.23.07.2018 in IA.No.564 of 2018 in OS.No.410 of 2018 of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.410 of 2018. 3. The 1st respondent herein had filed O.S.No.410 of 2018 against the petitioner and respondents 2 & 3 for a perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner and the 2nd respondent from interfering with its peaceful enjoyment and user of the plaint schedule property and implementing the Award of the Lok Adalat passed in LAC.No.443 of 2012 in any manner by trying to lock the entrance to the suit schedule property. 4. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are brothers. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The 1st respondent is a proprietary concern and its proprietress is the wife of the 3rd respondent. 5. Petitioner and 3rd respondent along with their mother had purchased the plaint schedule property, which is a house bearing Nos. 4-2-406 to 409 admeasuring 202 sq. yards in Sultan Bazar, Ramkoti, Hyderabad under a registered sale deed dt.17.07.1970. 6. The 3rd respondent purchased premises bearing house No.4-2-410. Contentions of 1st respondent in the plaint 7. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, petitioner, 3rd respondent and their mother intended to develop the suit schedule property and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for development with the 1st respondent on 12.07.2006; that as per the terms of the said agreement, the 1st respondent is entitled to 50% of the developed area and the petitioner, 3rd respondent and their mother were entitled to the balance 50% area; and pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent had constructed a commercial complex consisting ground + 2 upper floors after obtaining required sanctions and permissions from the appropriate authority. 8. According to the 1st respondent, the construction is completed but finishing work remained. 9. It is the contention of the 1st respondent that disputes arose between the family of the petitioner and the neighbours and the neighbours had filed several cases seeking injunction restraining the construction of the complex. 10. The 1st respondent had then filed OS.No.169 of 2010 before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of Development Agreement dt.12.07.2006. 11. 10. The 1st respondent had then filed OS.No.169 of 2010 before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of Development Agreement dt.12.07.2006. 11. During the pendency of the said suit, the mother of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent died in 2011 and her share devolved upon the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 12. It is stated that there was a settlement between the 1st respondent, petitioner and the 3rd respondent, and they entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, which was signed and recorded before the Lok Adalat vide LAC.No.443 of 2012 and an Award was passed by the said Lok Adalat on 18.08.2012, after the Memorandum of Compromise was signed by all the parties along with a sketch plan and O.S.No.169 of 2010 was disposed of in terms of the said award. 13. The 1st respondent contended that as per clause (3) of the said Memorandum of Compromise, petitioner specifically agreed that he would not interfere with the development work and would allow the 1st respondent to carry out the remaining works as agreed, and as per clause(6), petitioner and 2nd respondent also agreed that they will not interfere with the construction work at any point of time and allow the 1st respondent and its workers to visit the suit property at any point of time. 14. The 1st respondent contended that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent with a malafide intention subsequently started interfering with the construction work whenever it was taken up by the 1st respondent and were creating hurdles in the process; that the petitioner filed OS.No.632 of 2016 before the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat in LAC.No.443 of 2012 in OS.No.169 of 2010 is un-enforceable and to set aside the same; that there was no interim orders passed in the said suit, which is pending; that on 07.02.2018, petitioner and 2nd respondent tried to interfere with the use and enjoyment by the 1st respondent of the suit schedule property and continued the said interference till 29.04.2018 and therefore the suit was filed. I.A.No.564 of 2018 15. I.A.No.564 of 2018 15. Pending suit, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.564 of 2018 reiterating the contents of the plaint as above and sought temporary injunction against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent restraining them from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and user of the 1st respondent of the suit schedule property and in implementing the Award of the Lok Adalat passed in LAC.No.443 of 2012. The stand of the petitioner in IA No.564 of 2018 16. Counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner opposing the said application. 17. He contended that the suit itself is not maintainable in law and the 1st respondent is not entitled for any temporary injunction; that for the implementation of the Award, the civil suit, such as one filed by the 1st respondent, cannot be maintained and the 1st respondent should have executed the Lok Adalat Award by filing an appropriate application for execution of the said award; that the Award in LAC.No.443 of 2012 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation played by the respondents 1 and 3; that OS.No.632 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner before the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; and that the instant suit has been filed by the 1st respondent in collusion with the 3rd respondent. 18. It is denied that the 1st respondent was in possession of the suit schedule property. 19. It is contended that no right is created in favour of the 1st respondent under the un-registered Agreement dt.12.07.2006. According to the petitioner, even if the Award is taken to be valid, still the claim of the 1st respondent is only for 50% of the suit schedule property, but the 1st respondent is seeking injunction in respect of the total property. 20. Other contentions on merits are also raised. 21. The 2nd respondent also filed counter affidavit resisting the claim of the 1st respondent in the IA. 22. The 3rd respondent remained ex-parte. 23. The 1st respondent marked Exs.P1 to P5 in IA.No.564 of 2018, while the 2nd respondent marked Ex.R1 to R3 and the petitioner marked Ex.R4 to R33. The order of the trial court in IA No.564 of 2018 24. After considering the said material, the trial Court dismissed IA.No.564 of 2018. 25. 22. The 3rd respondent remained ex-parte. 23. The 1st respondent marked Exs.P1 to P5 in IA.No.564 of 2018, while the 2nd respondent marked Ex.R1 to R3 and the petitioner marked Ex.R4 to R33. The order of the trial court in IA No.564 of 2018 24. After considering the said material, the trial Court dismissed IA.No.564 of 2018. 25. It took note of the filing of OS.No.632 of 2016 by the petitioner challenging the Lok Adalat Award in LAC.No.443 of 2012(Ex.P3) before the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 26. It also took note of the Clauses 3 & 6 in the Award, which indicated that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent would not interfere in the development work and the petitioner and the 2nd respondent will not interfere with the construction work, but observed that if the 1st respondent is permitted to carry out construction work as per the Award, it would render OS.No.632 of 2016 filed by the petitioner infructuous. 27. It also observed that when disputed questions of fact and law are raised pertaining to the passing of the Award in OS.No.169 of 2010, which is pending adjudication in OS.No.632 of 2016, the 1st respondent is not entitled for implementation of the Award and that the suit OS.No.632 of 2016 is a comprehensive suit and it would be eventually decided, whether the Award was passed on the voluntary volition of the parties or it is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. It also referred to the fact that the Development Agreement (Ex.P2) being unregistered and held that the 1st respondent did not establish prima facie case or balance of convenience. The order in CMA.No.103 of 2018 of the lower appellate court 28. Challenging the same, the 1st respondent filed CMA.No.103 of 2018 before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 29. By order dt.11.02.2020, the said Appeal was allowed by the lower Appellate Court and temporary injunction was granted in favour of the 1st respondent pending disposal of the suit. 30. It held that as per the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise recorded in the Lok Adalat Award in LAC.No.443 of 2012 dt.18.08.2012 (Ex.P4), the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were not entitled to interfere with the development work or construction work. 31. 30. It held that as per the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise recorded in the Lok Adalat Award in LAC.No.443 of 2012 dt.18.08.2012 (Ex.P4), the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were not entitled to interfere with the development work or construction work. 31. Referring to the contention of the petitioner about the maintainability of the suit OS.No.410 of 2018, the lower Appellate Court observed that it is difficult to answer the said issue at this stage and the said issue can be gone into when the matter is finally decided. 32. It further observed that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are required to honour the terms of the Lok Adalat Award regarding the Memorandum of Compromise and they cannot interfere with the carrying out of the finishing work dishonoring the terms of Ex.P4. 33. It rejected the plea of the petitioner about the Development Agreement being unregistered on the ground that the petitioner had entered into the said compromise knowing that it was an unregistered one and he cannot approbate and reprobate, and now contend that the Memorandum of Compromise is invalid in the eye of law for non-registration, particularly, when the proprietress of the 1st respondent is his own sister-in-law, the wife of the 3rd respondent, who is brother of the petitioner. 34. It held that the terms of the Development Agreement (Ex.P2) were already acted upon and most part of the construction work is completed and at the final stage of the construction and finishing work, the petitioner cannot interfere. It observed that if construction/finishing work is stopped, huge investment made by the 1st respondent would come to a standstill and the value of the semi-constructed building would deteriorate and it would ultimately become useless. The instant Revision 35. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed. 36. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower Appellate Court erred in reversing the well considered order of the trial Court in IA.No.564 of 2018; that the lower Appellate Court ought to have taken notice of the pendency of the suit OS.No.632 of 2016 filed by the petitioner challenging the Award of the Lok Adalat in LAC.No.443 of 2012(Ex.P3) passed in OS.No.169 of 2010; that serious allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were leveled by the petitioner against the respondents 1 & 3; and development agreement Ex.P2 is an unregistered one. 37. 37. According to him, under the development agreement only 50% of the developed property would go to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent cannot be granted an injunction for the entire suit schedule property. He also contended that the 1st respondent could not have maintained OS.No.410 of 2018 for implementation of the Lok Adalat Award and that the 1st respondent should have filed an execution petition to execute the Lok Adalat Award in LAC.No.443 of 2012 passed on 18.08.2012 in OS.No.169 of 2010. The consideration by the Court 38. It is not the case of the petitioner that any application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been moved to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. Even if the petitioner had raised the plea about the maintainability of OS.No.410 of 2018 in the written statement, the same would be considered by the Court below when the matter is finally decided. There is no presumption in law that a suit instituted is not maintainable unless it is held to be so by a Court. 39. Therefore, at this point of time, one has to proceed as if the suit filed by the 1st respondent is maintainable. 40. It may be that the petitioner had filed OS.No.632 of 2016 before the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to declare that the Award of the Lok Adalat passed in LAC.No.443 of 2012 in OS.No.169 of 2012 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and is unsustainable and to set it aside, but no interim order has been obtained in the said suit by the petitioner suspending the operation of the Award of the Lok Adalat as of now. 41. Consequently, Ex.P4 Memorandum of Compromise, which is recorded by the Lok Adalat in the said Award (LAC No.443 of 2012) prima facie has to be enforced. 42. Clauses 3 & 6 of the said Memorandum of Compromise admittedly indicate that the petitioner and respondents 2 & 3 would not interfere with the development work or construction work being carried on by the petitioner. 43. Though according to the 1st respondent, the construction work is completed, finishing work is not yet completed and it is alleged that the petitioner and his wife, the 2nd respondent, are interfering with the execution of the finishing work by the 1st respondent. 44. 43. Though according to the 1st respondent, the construction work is completed, finishing work is not yet completed and it is alleged that the petitioner and his wife, the 2nd respondent, are interfering with the execution of the finishing work by the 1st respondent. 44. In view of Clauses 3 & 6 of Ex.P4-Memorandum of Compromise, it is not open prima facie for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to cause such interference with the finishing work being carried on by the 1st respondent as long as the Lok Adalat Award is in force. Moreover, the Development Agreement (Ex.P2) has been executed by the 1st respondent and the petitioner was aware that it is an unregistered agreement. 45. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate and now raise a plea of non-registration at this point of time having knowingly signed the said document, where under the development is being carried on by the 1st respondent, who is none other than his sister-in-law, and the wife of the 3rd respondent, his brother. 46. I therefore do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the lower Appellate Court warranting interference with it by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 47. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 48. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.