ORDER : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Sri. D. Kaval Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. Bhaskar Muthyala, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.03.2025 in C.M.A. No. 97 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order passed in I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4186 of 2024 dated 04.10.2024, wherein, a petition filed by the appellants/petitioners seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule properties consisting of Schedule A and B properties i.e.,H.No.13-6-438/2/9 admeasuring 161 sq.yards at Jaffarguda, Hyderabad and H.No.13- 6-431/D/82/7/1 admeasuring 32 sq. yards at Jaffarguda, Hyderabad, has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 4186 of 2024 for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein who are official respondents and the unofficial respondent No. 3 to restrain them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and from causing any interference with construction of the petitioners over the suit schedule A and B properties. The case of the petitioners herein is that they are absolute owners and possessors of Schedule A and Schedule B properties having purchased them under registered sale deed document Nos. 3747 of 2015 and 3748 of 2015 dated 01.09.2012 from one E. Ponchamma. After purchase of the properties, the petitioners allowed the vendors to do scrap business in the Schedule A and B properties. The vendors did not vacate the premises in spite of several requests made by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a representation to GHMC officials informing them about the unauthorised scrap business being carried out in the premises. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the GHMC officials have issued a demolition order dated 10.07.2024 and also got removed the scrap business from Schedule A and B properties and said properties were handed over to the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondents who had no right or interest over the Schedule A and B properties are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. The respondents have an eyesore with respect to Schedule A and B properties. There was an attempted criminal trespass on 19.08.2024 and the same was resisted. Thereafter, the respondents who had no right or interest over the Schedule A and B properties are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. The respondents have an eyesore with respect to Schedule A and B properties. There was an attempted criminal trespass on 19.08.2024 and the same was resisted. Thereafter, again on 27.08.2024, the respondents with their henchmen came to the properties and interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. There is possibility of collusion between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and there is possibility of illegal encroachment on the suit schedule properties. The illegal attempts made by the respondents are resisted with the help of the neighbours. However, the respondents threatened the petitioners with dire consequences and when a complaint is sought to be lodged against the respondent No. 3, the police refused to take the same. In the circumstances, a suit in O.S. No. 4186 of 2024 for perpetual injunction is filed. When notice was served on the respondents, they did not appear and therefore, were set ex parte. 4. The trial Court dealt with the interlocutory application i.e., I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 by examining the exhibited documents filed by the petitioners under Exs.P.1 to P.16. When notice was served on the respondents, they did not appear and therefore, were set ex parte. 4. The trial Court dealt with the interlocutory application i.e., I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 by examining the exhibited documents filed by the petitioners under Exs.P.1 to P.16. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of gift settlement deed No.1048 of 2012 dated 16.03.2012; Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.2008 of 1999 dated 16.07.1998; Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.3747 of 2014 dated 01.09.2014; Ex.P4 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.3748 of 2014 dated 01.09.2014; Ex.P.5 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner Karwan Circle-13, Khairtabad zone vide number 31KHB0001428973 dated 07.08.2024; Ex.P.6 is the GHMC property tax payment receipt; Ex.P.7 is the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board online bill payment receipt; Ex.P.8 is the GHMC property tax payment receipt; Ex.P.9 is the letter No.2/9/ACP/TPS/C13/KZ/GHMC/2024 dated 04.07.2024; Ex.P.10 is the show cause notice No.2/9/ACP/TPS/C13/KZ/GHMC/2023 dated 12.12.2023; Ex.P.11 is the statement of encumbrance on property; Ex.P.12 is the Market value assistance certificate dated 30.08.2024; Ex.P.13 is the complaint dated 27.08.2024 addressed to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Khairtabad, GHMC, Hyderabad; Ex.P.14 is the complaint dated 27.08.2024 addressed to the Commissioner, Tank bund, 1 st floor, GHMC, Hyderabad; Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.1324 of 1994 dated 20.09.1993; Ex.P.16 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Karwan Circle-13, Khairtabad Zone vide No.312997000002077 dated 13.03.2023. Upon examining this entire evidence, it is held that Exs.P.1 to P.16 show that the petitioners are owners and possessors of the Schedule A and B properties and that the respondents have taken steps for removal of unauthorised construction in said suit schedule A and B properties. Since the official respondents are taking action in accordance with provisions of GHMC Act and TB-bPass Act, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and therefore, the petition i.e., I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 was dismissed. 5. The petitioners herein aggrieved by the Order dated 04.10.2024 carried the same in appeal vide C.M.A. No. 97 of 2024 before the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 5. The petitioners herein aggrieved by the Order dated 04.10.2024 carried the same in appeal vide C.M.A. No. 97 of 2024 before the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Upon examining the order passed by the trial court in I.A. No.1025 of 2024 and also the documentary evidence, the Appellate Court held that as per Exs.P.1 to P.8, P.15 and P.16, the petitioners are owners of the suit schedule properties and the title deeds prove the same. Further, the Exs.P.5, P.6, P.7, P.8 and P.9 proved the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule properties. However, it is held that Ex.P.10 is the show cause notice issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for raising unauthorised construction, seeking explanation as to why said unauthorised constructions cannot be removed. Under Ex.P.9, the official respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have requested the police to provide sufficient force and power for removing the unauthorised construction. It is held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have authority to remove the unauthorised constructions by giving statutory notice. In such an instance, the petitioners cannot prevent the authorities by taking aid of Courts to create barriers by seeking injunction. It is held that injunction orders cannot be passed to prevent the GHMC officials from performing their lawful duties. Since the GHMC officials have initiated steps as per provisions of the GHMC Act, they cannot be prevented by granting temporary exemption. As such, the Appellate Court also dismissed the C.M.A, leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. In grounds of revision, the petitioners pleaded that the interlocutory application filed seeking temporary injunction while demonstrating prima facie case and possession over the said scheduled properties has been dismissed and thereby, there is a material irregularity committed. It is pleaded that Exs.P.1 to P.16, more particularly the registered sale deeds under Exs.P.3 and P.4 and property tax receipts Exs.P.6 and P.8 clearly establish both ownership and lawful possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule properties. The Courts below have failed to consider that no final demolition order or adjudication of unauthorised construction was produced by GHMC. Further, it is pleaded that the trial Court failed to reason and consider pleadings against respondent No. 3 who has been randomly impleaded without clarification of pleadings. The Courts below have failed to consider that no final demolition order or adjudication of unauthorised construction was produced by GHMC. Further, it is pleaded that the trial Court failed to reason and consider pleadings against respondent No. 3 who has been randomly impleaded without clarification of pleadings. According to the petitioners, they have balance of convenience and it is clearly in their favour as they are in possession by GHMC after eviction of the vendors. The Courts below have wrongfully presumed that an injunction order would hinder the lawful duties of GHMC under GHMC Act and TS-bPass Act when the relief was limited to protecting the possession of petitioners against high-handed interference and to restrain unlawful demolition. It is pleaded that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to apply well-established legal principles that possession, even without title, is to be protected against unlawful dispossession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. The petitioners herein were denied Police protection and were directed to approach the Civil Court. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have given overly emphasis on the issue of unauthorised construction with ownership rights. The petitioners are claiming their lawful ownership but not unauthorised structures. It is further pleaded that the order passed by the Appellate Court, travels beyond the limited scope of Interlocutory application considerations and renders the findings which are similar to a final judgment. As such, it is prayed that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court, are to be set aside. 7. A perusal of the plaint pleading shows that there is no dispute about the ownership and possession of the petitioners over the suit Schedule A and B properties under registered sale deeds marked under Exs.P.3, P.4, P.6 and P.7. Then a question arises in what circumstances the petitioners have sought injunction against the respondents. It appears that there are two grievances to the petitioners which are distinct and separate against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on one hand and the respondent No. 3 on the other hand. On one hand, when the vendors were permitted to carry on with scrap business in Schedule A and B properties, subsequently they did not vacate in spite of requests by the petitioners. When such a situation prevailed, the petitioners have given complaint to GHMC i.e. respondent Nos. On one hand, when the vendors were permitted to carry on with scrap business in Schedule A and B properties, subsequently they did not vacate in spite of requests by the petitioners. When such a situation prevailed, the petitioners have given complaint to GHMC i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 about the vendors carrying on unauthorised scrap business. Apparently, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued notice and closed the scrap business and handed over possession to the petitioners. This narration of events shows that the petitioners have used respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to get possession over suit scheduleA and B properties from their vendors by closing down the scrap business. 8. The next issue is the grievance against the respondent No. 3 by the petitioners. When the petitioners perused their grievance against respondent No.3, it is seen that a blanket allegation is made against all the respondents about causing interference and attempts at illegal encroachment into suit schedule A and B properties. A collusion is alleged between the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. There is a pleading about the respondent No. 3 running business without trade license and fire permission in front of the suit schedule properties. When respondent No. 3 is running scrap business in front of the suit schedule properties, seeking injunction against him is a different proposition. It does not stand to reason that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are Government officials would collude with respondent No. 3 either to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the suit schedule properties or running illegal scrap business in front of the suit schedule properties. 9. From the Exhibits marked, it is gathered that as per Ex.P.9 there is an unauthorised shed constructed in the suit schedule properties and therefore, a showcase notice dated 12.12.2023 was issued under Ex.P.10 by the GHMC to the occupier of the suit schedule A and B properties as to why the unauthorised constructions should not be demolished unless sufficient cause is shown. From the contents of Exs.P.9 and P.10, it can be inferred that the petitioners herein have made unauthorised constructions and therefore, a show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 was issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. From the contents of Exs.P.9 and P.10, it can be inferred that the petitioners herein have made unauthorised constructions and therefore, a show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 was issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The aforementioned fact and circumstances show that the petitioners have a distinct grievance against respondent No. 2 for issuing Exs.P.9 and P.10 i.e., letter dated 04.07.2024and show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 and their grievance against respondent No. 3 is distinct as he is running unauthorised business in front of the suit Schedule A and B properties premises. 10. Coming to the aspect of grant of temporary injunction against municipal authorities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad v. Philomena Education Foundation of India, Hyderabad 2007 SCC OnLine AP 819 , at paragraph No. 78 held as follows: “78. …(6). As no injunction can be passed by a Court permitting a person to violate the law, or to restrain municipal authorities from discharging their statutory duties/functions, the Court should appraise itself of the relevant statutory provisions and not be swayed entirely by the self-serving pleas and evidence adduced by the person seeking its intervention. (9) The order of the Court should not disable municipal authorities from monitoring and ensuring that construction of such buildings is in accordance with the statutory provisions prescribed in the Act, the Bye-laws and the regulations.” (verbatim reproduced) 11. In view of the above judgment, this Court is in conformity with the findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court about an injunction order causing interference with lawful duties of GHMC i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2. Only when there is illegal interference, temporary injunction relief can be granted. In the instant case, there is no such illegal interference on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners herein apparently made some unauthorised construction and therefore, they have issued a show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 and also a letter dated 04.07.2024 under Exs.P.9 and P.10. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were doing their duty and therefore, irrespective of the fact that the petitioners are lawful owners and also in possessors of suit schedule properties, they are not entitled to grant of temporary injunction to restrain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the suit schedule A and B properties. 12. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were doing their duty and therefore, irrespective of the fact that the petitioners are lawful owners and also in possessors of suit schedule properties, they are not entitled to grant of temporary injunction to restrain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the suit schedule A and B properties. 12. With respect to case against respondent No.3, it is seen that the only allegation against him is that he is running unauthorised business in front of the suit schedule A and B properties. There is no proof about existence of such business in the documents marked under Exs.P.1 to P.16. There is allegation about the vendors doing scrap business in the suit schedule A and B properties and its removal. There is no clarity about whether respondent No. 3 is one of those vendors or a third party. The grievance of the petitioners against the respondent No. 3 is unclear. In case a unauthorised business is run in front of suit Schedule A and B properties, in case the petitioners do not have ownership over such properties, the petitioners cannot claim interference on the part of respondent No. 3 for carrying on business in the place in front of suit schedule A and B properties. In view of the ambiguity prevailing about the grievance of petitioners against the respondent no. 3 and in the absence of convincing case about the business of respondent No. 3 which apparently is located in front of the properties of the petitioners, no relief of temporary injunction can be granted. In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the orders passed by both the trial Court and the Appellate Court. There are no grounds to interfere with said orders and the Civil Revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.