The High Court · 2025

.fT{I.], IION'BLE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BI,E SMT. JUST'ICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL MI SC ELLANT], OUS A PPI'AL No.6l of 2023 .IUDGME NT (Per Hon'ble Sn .Justice .[. Vinod Kumttr) I'his Cir.,il Miscellaneous Appeal is liled against the order datccl 02.01.2023 passed in LA.No.g 16 ol 2021in O.S.No.5g of 2020 on thc file of the IV Additional District Judge, at Sanga Rcddr

2. fhe Appellant hereiri is the plaintifi.in rhe above suit Iiled lbr Specilic Perlbrmance of Agreement of Sale datecl 29.Ol .2llg under Order- Vll Rule I o{- Civil procedure Code (lbr shon 'CP(t'). and respondent No.l in the underlying Inrcrlocutorv Application fllcd under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CpC. i. ir is rhr- ca_rc ol'thc appellant tha[,.he had enre.rt_cl inlo an agrecment ol'sale on 29.07.2019 with respondent No. i in respect o1'sale of 1en f'larsin Sri Ayyappa Sai Ram Residency_4, situatcd at K istaredd_vpet village, Ameenpur Mandal at Sanagreddy District lbr rotal sale consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/_ (Rupees '['wo (]rorcs only); and that, the responcrcnt No.1 received an ,/ i 2 amount ol Rs 5,00.000/- (Rtrpees lrive Lakhs) by rvar of (ihcque dated 29.07.20 l9 and Cash ol Rs.45.00,000/- (l{upccs lrortv l;ivc Lakhs Ontl') as part adr etnce salc corrsidcration

4. Appellant contellds that. hc apploached tlre resporrderrl No. I on 10.01.2020 and derrarrdecl to producc all the clocurt-tents and approvals lor verificatiott in ordcr to get legistration of subject property; and that tl,cl.cs1-,ond"',t No l had assurctl arld promiscd to handover all thc relcvalrt docuttrettts ancl also agrecd to fegistcr thc sr_rb.icct prol)crt). ilrlut.our ol'thc appcllanl rt itllil.t ottc rnonth. On tlte rcspotldcnt i\o. I dcla-r irrg the cxcctlLiorl of sale deed arrd duc to lockdort'n. subseqttently the appcllarlt cotlld rlot approach thc resportdent No. I atrd after relaxation of the lockdorvn, orr appt oachirtg thc re spondcnt \o. l . it hacl cicnicd to cxecute thc registered salc dccd

5. Appcllart lirt tltct contcrrils tlrat. otr ctlqLritt lrc iratl lcarnt that, respondctll. No. I irltcrrtiorralll' ar oidccl to ()xccLlte thc registered sale deed and by suppressing tlle exislin*{r. agreelnent with him, had alicnated pan <l1- the strbiect propcrly to third pafties, depriving the appellant ol'his light lttrdcr aglccrnent o1' sale. \ \ w l

6. It is contended bv rhc appcllant rhat, on the respondent No. i denying to execute sale deed in his favour, he had obtained the Errcurnbrance Certificate on 04.0g.2020 and shocked to notice that Flat No. 20 t u,as sold inlirvour of respondentNos.4 and 5 vide regisrered Sale deed darcd 20.0_i.2020 and Flar No. 205 was sold inlavour ol'responclent Nos.2 and 3 vile Registercd Sale deed dated 26.02.2020, cvcn though thc said flats were part of thc Agrcernent ol'sale- rc.spondent No. I deliberarely breached the conditions of agrcemen[ of sale *,hich ir.rvas bound 10 comply by receiving the balance sale consideration. "n,.r."j into u ith thc appellant. .l.hus,

7. Sincc, the rcspondc-nt No. I did not abide by thc terms of agrecmcnr ol' salc. thc appcllanr has llled thc subject suit fbr Spccitic [)crtirrntancr. ol' .\g1.cg;11gn1 oi. Salc dated 29.0].2019 uir1e, O.S. No. 5g ol-1010 and along ivith the suit the appellanr also filed application t,icle l_A. No. 365 of 2020 under. Order XXXIX Rules t & 2 CpC seeking granr of ad_interim injunction restraining the respondents fi.om alienating the subject propeffy in favour of third parries. 'l.hc- rrial Clourt alter hearing both the 4 pafties and bl,considering the documents on record. has allowcd \] the I.A No. 165 o12020 yide,order dated 10.01.1011

8. Aggriercd bv the trial Court's order.in t.,\. \o..165 o1 2020, the respondent No.l filcd C.M.A No.250 o1-l0ll belbre this Court Prar inq t() strspcnd thc irlLerint ()r.lel' datccl

10.03.202.I'his Court b.v- considcring the subnrissions rrrade urrlc older dated 13.06.202 I had disrnissed the appeal filed by the respondent No. I l'rerein

9. Appellanl lLrthcl contends that, the tLiai Clorrrt as well as the Division Ilcnch ol this (lourt had elaborately dealt \\,ith the contentions ol' thc rcspondcrrt No.l ri,hilc ccnsidclLnl I.r\. No 365 of 2020 and CMA No. l-i0 of l0ll. z\ppcllant contends that the responden( No- I thcreaftcr flled thc undcLlying intcr'[ocutory application undcr Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC vide l.A No.8l6 of 202 l, seeking to set aside the ordcr dated 10.03.1011 passed I I-I I.A No. 365 <tl'2020 in the afbresaid suit. clairnine that there is change in circur.nstances as it had obtained the expcrl opinion lronr liorcnsic Scicncc Laboratorics (lbr shon 'l St- ) virlr: reporl/opinion dated 27.09.21)21 inCr.No.297 o1- 2020 of Anreenpur P S. vide letler clatcd 16.08.202 lbir conrparing the signature on the bank cheque issr.red and signatures of the respondent No.1 contained on the spccimen sheet of [he bank.

10. Furlher, the appellant contends that, the respondent No.l has already got rhe cxperl's opinion rhrough a private agency i.e. l'ruth Laboratories, at the time ol'hearing of I.A. No. 356 of 2020 and thc said experl repor-t dated 21.10.2020 was also rnarked as Lx.R-3 in thc saici I.A. It is contended that the trial Court by considcring the above document and after hearing both the parties had allowed,the said application in favour of the appellant hcrein and the said ordcr u,as also confirmed bv this Court in thc appca l.

11. It is conrended b1 the appellanr, since, the rcspondent. No.l had alreadv arailcd its righr ol appeal by challenging the order and decree passed in I.A. No.365 of 2020 before the Division Bench of this Cour1, the order passed by the trial Court in undellying intcrlocuroly application vide l.A. No. g l6 ol 2022 dated 02.01 .202.3 is unsusrainable.

12. Per Contra, the respondent No. I contends that, it approached the appellant lor taking hand loan ol an arrount of Rs, 2,00,00,000/- lor irs business purpose, and rhe appellant for / l j I I .j 6 extending loan demanded lor providing collateral secr"rrit,v and advised to execute agreement ol sale of flats in thc apaftmcnt being constructed by him and due to acqLlaintance it had rvith the appellant, it had executed the agrcement of sale, rvhct'e uuder the appellant promised to pay I{s.5,00,000/-b1' rva-v'' oI cheque and Rs. 45.00,000/-by way of cash and rernainirlg amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to be paid rvithin three uronths'

13. Respondent No. I contcncls that. on approaching the appellant den-randing to hahd over thc cheque amount u"l-rich is to be paid, the appellant'laitcd to pay and postponcd tlre matter on one other pretext and all ol a sudden. the lesporrdent No l received sutlllrlons frorrr the trial Court in O S' No iS ol- 2020 in a suit lor specific performance of agrcctlent ol salc filcd b1' the appcllant and on due verificaLion o1-. the agreelnent' iL \\as discovered that two papers i.e. page Nos' 4& 5 in the agreetnent by putting forged signatures rvhicl-r does not belong to t[-re respondent No. l.

14. Accordingly, the respondent No' 1 in order to conllrtn thal the last two pages of the agreement of sale i e Pagc No 4 and 5 are containing his fbrged signatures or nol-' sent the agt'cemenL ol 7 sale and the receipt conraining the questioned signatures to '[ elangana State l,-SL at Red Hills tbr comparison through the Principal Junior CiviI Judge-(_-um-Judicial First Class Magisrrare at Sangareddy in Cr.No.l97 o12020 of Amecnpur p.S. vde letter dated 16.08.2021, rvho had furnished its repon/opinion dated 21 .09.2021 as follows: "'[he person who wrote thc red enclosed signulrres marketl Sl to 57 did not write the red enclosed signatttres marked el arul e2.,, 15. 'lhe respondent No.l contends that the above FSL report being subscqucnr cvenL.,it had liled rhe underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 816 of 202 I uncler. Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking rr.l ser aside the ordcr dated 10.03.202 I passed in favor.rr of the appellant her-ein in I.A No. 365 of 2020.

16. Respondent No.l conrcnds that the tr.ial Courl considering the opinion of FSt., u,hich is a subsequent event, has passed an order dated 02.01 .1021 in t.,\. No. g l6 ol102 I in thvour of the respondent No. I herein b,i. allorvins the petition and setting aside the order passed in I.A. No. 365 ol 2020 and. as such the said order does not sull'er lrom any error..

17. Heard, learncd Counsel tbr the appellant and leamed Counsel fbr respondents '1 1 I l 8 I 8. We have taken note of respective contentions r'rrged and perused the record. I9. Thc case ol thc appcllant hcrein is that. as allcacly the trial Cou( under Orcler XXXIX ILule 1 and 2 CPC had passed ad- irrterirn injunction order dated 10.03.2021 in I A No 365 ol 2020, which order has been alfirmed by thc Division Bench o1- this Courl vicle order dated 30 06.202 I in CN4A t''-o. 150 ol20l1' thc respoudent No. I cannot file the underlying iutct locutotl application untlerr Ordcr XX.XIX I{ule 4 (ll)(-. I lrc rcspondent No.l on the other hand'contcnded that thc [iSI- report bcing a subsequent event, it is entitled to maintain the underlying application under Order XXXIX Itute 4 oICPC

10. tt is pe(inenl- to llotc that, l-hc lespondcnt No 1 contcndcd that it approachcd thc appellant to lend a strnl ol Rs' 2,00.00.000/- lor cievcloptncnt of his bttsitle ss atrd as I collatcral security executed agrcement of sale. 'fhc rcsporldcnt No l however dicl not produce any documents to prove tlre same' Furlher, thc documents marked by the appeltar.rt before the trial Couft as Ex. P-l i.e. Agreement of Sale dated 29'07 2019 and trx.P-2 i.e. Reccipt datecl 29.07 .2019 clearly denronstrales that -7 9 respondent No. I receivcd Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque and as well as Rs. 45,00,000/-by way of cash in respect of agreement of sale Ex.P- l.

21. Furlher, it is to be noted that, the trial Court in l.A. No.365 of 2020 as well as the Division Bench of this Cour-t in appeal observed that, the respondent No. t f-ailed to produce its copy of the Agreement of Sale i.e. Ex.P-l which the respondent No. lin normal circumstances would have retained.

22. It is also perlinent to note that, the trial Court in I.A. No.365 of 2020 as well as this eourl while upholding Lhe order of the trial Court in CMA No.250 of 2021, by detailed analysis observed as under: Para 48- The conlention of appellant that it onl! intendecl tc.t creure a security for a loan and Ex.P I is exet:uted onl-v Jbr the said purpose. cannot be uccepted prima.facie hecause tlrc appellant is u Real Estate businessman and clearly understands the dy'ference between an. 'Agreemenl to Sell' imnnvahle property and a 'Mortgage Deed'. Such worldly-wise person cannol be allowetl to take the plea that he did not know the dd./brence befw,een a mortgage deed and an agreetnent b sell By observing as above, this Courl in CMA susrained rhe order of the trial Court was by dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent No. I herein. 10

23. 'lhereafter, the respondent No. I herein had fited the underlying application vide 1.A. No. 816 ol 2022 under Order XXXIX lLule 4 CPC before the trial Court tbr setting aside the order in t.A, No. 365 ol 2020 in O.S. No. 58 o12020

24. [n order to consider as to whether the lcspondent No. I could have inaintained the underlying application, it is appropriate to reler to Rule 4 of Order XXXIX CPC which reads as under:

4. Order for injanction may be discharged, varied or sel aside Any 6ris1'f1,, an injunction may be discharged. or yuried, or set aside by the ('ont on application made thereto hy any party d is.s ttl i.s {i c d w it h suc h order. Providecl thctt if in an applicationfor temporary' injunction or in any affidavit supporting .such application a party hus knowingly nnde a.false or misleading statement in relatitttt lo o material particulur anc! the injunction was granted wilhout giring np|isg to thL' ()pposile party, the Court shall vacate tllc injunctiott unles.s, .for reasons io be recorded, it cons'iders thut it is tlot neces-\ar)) .to to do in the interests ofjuslice: Provided /itrther lhat where an order for injunction has bctn passed after giving lo a party an opportunity o.f being hcard, the order .shall nol be discharged, voried or set oside on the apltlicatbn of thctt party except where such discharge. varialion or setting oside has been necessitated by a change in the circufilstances, or unless the Court is satisfied thot the order has caused undue hardship to that party.

25. A reading of the above Rule would show that any order of injunction tnay be discharged or varied or set aside by the Cour1, t ' 11 which had initially granted it on an application made rhereto bv any party which is dissatisfied with the said order.

26. The frrst proviso to the afbresaid Rure would f,rther indicate that the Court in order to vary, discharge or ser aside the injLrnction order granled earlier, can vacate the said injunction by recording reasons, if the said order has been obtained bi,. making a f-alse or misleading satement in relatior.r to thc malerial pafticu lars, without giving notice to the opposite parry.

27. 'Ihe mention of *o.ds ,tt,ithout giving norice to the opStosite pur\:' in the alorcsaid prov iso irnplics [hut such an in junclion havirrg been passed e-r partL it1 rcrnls .,1- ()Ldcr xXXIX [{urc j C.P.C

28. fhe above said position i.r,ould clear. fi.om the second proviso to Rule 4 C.p.C. wherein it is stated that if an injunction order- has been passed after giving to a party an opporlunity of being heard, the said order shall not be clischarged, r,aried or ser aside on the appJicarion cxccpt on lhc qroLrnd oi.changc in the ci|cumstances or the Courl is satislled lhat the order has caused unduc hardship to that parlir. a 1,2 29 . In thc l.:cts o1' thc prcscnt casc. thc impugnr:d ortlcr passccl by the trial (-oult in the urrderlying Interlocutor.l ,,\pplication does not record any reasons as to the hardship to the purty t.c lesponclenL No. I herein or the change in the circumstancc u hich ilas not ar ailahle ir hen LA. No. 365 of' 2020 was considcrecl lirr it to clischargc thc ordcr passed in 1.A.No.365 o1'2020 O.S.No.-iE ol' l0l0 'fhough tlic rcspondcnt No. I clairucd I;SL rcpoft ls a subscclucut c irc u u.rstar.rccs, sincc it had allcadv pleaded the said l-act on the basis of report obtaincd lronr a private lab. nrerc getting another reporl reinlbrcing thc said clairn cannot bc considr.red as 'change in circuustances lbr the Cotrrt belou,to \,a11. or discharge the older passed carlicr-

30. I'rrrthcr. it is also to bc rrotccl that since, thc ordcr itt l.A.No.l(r.5 ol'1010 h ar,in q bcen passed afier 3.rant ing. ol' opportLurit.) ol' being lreard to the respondent No.l herein, thc trial Court could rrot have dealt with the underlying Interlocutoly Application as llled against an c.)cparte ad interinr rnjr-rnctiorr. mole so, u'hcn respondent No. l having assailed tltc said rtldcr 1 LA.No.365 ol'1010 by liling a CMA bcfore the IIon'blc IIigh 13 Court and the said order having been confirmed by a Division Benclr of this Court in C.M.A.No.250 of 2021 I L Ihe reasons assi-encd by the trial (lourr lbr acccpting the claim ofrespondent No.l herein in the underlying Interlocutory Application that the signal.ure on the cheque being statcd to have been issued by the I'1 respondent varying with the specimen signature available with the Bank, cannot be considered as change in the circumstances for the trial Court to discharge the said order, more particularly, taking note ol the l-act that the Division Bcnch ol this Court in C.M.A.No,250 oi 2021 havinp prima facie observed that the respondenl No. I is a rcal estate businessman and clearly understands thc diII'crencc bctrveen 'agreement to scl[' immovable property and a 'Mortgage deed' and that rcspondent No. I was not gullible enough to sign the docurnent bona fidel,v believing the assurance of the appcllant herein and also without taking the admitted signatures of the appel lant lbr the purpose of comparison. ), Since, thc said findings recorded by this Court in C.M.A.No.250 of 2021 are in relation to the proceeding at an lnterlocutory Application stage, the respondent No. 1 merely by ./ f \..1 74 relying on Lhc []S[- r'epolt .qiven in another prcceeding in connection ,.r'ith ('r.No.l97 ol l0l0 b1' clainrinu change in circumstance. caunot maintain the underlyir-rg Interlocutory Application bclore the trial Court to reopen and rehear the matter on same material (See: Sitoram Modtn Vs. Rajkunworbait).

33. It is also to be noted tirat. the respondent No.1 who had admittcclty receir ed rhc said money of Rs.45 lakhs in caslr, cannot rcly on R.B.l. guiclclincs to r.i,'rigglc ou1 of iLs obligatiorl undcr Ex.P- 1. clainiing lhat as per R.B.l. Rules it is not pennissible to par large sunrs of money in cash. If there is any such inlringc-rncnt o1- the Rulcs it is lor l-hc said authority to take appropriate action and rcspondenl No.l cannot seek to take zrdvantagc i>1' LhL: :ialr1e. (Sce:Correspondence, RBANMS Dducationul lrtslitrttion t'. ll. Gunashekor ontl lnr2)

34. In the light of' thc abor e, this Court is o1- the view that the trial Court had crrcd in erercising its porver under Order XXXX Rule 4 CPC in considering the underlying Interlocutory Application and setting aside the order dated 10.03.202i in l.A No. 365 ol'2020 in O.S. No. 58 of 2020 as conllrmed bv this ' 195q lvlt,t..t 5i2 t202-5 SCC Ont-irc SCI 7L)-l Courl in C.M.A.No.250 ol 2021 dated 30.06'0202 1, for it to be sustained 35 Accordingly, the Civit Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and rhc order olthc trial Court dated 02-01-2023 passed in I.A No 816 ol202l in O.S. No.58 of 2020 is hereby set aside. No costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed SD/- A,V.S.S.C.S,M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR l To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The court of lV Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy 2 One CC to SRI GADDAM KIRAN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI S.V. RAMANA Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Pcsd/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.61 of 2023' , rrI S ]41 F o c : U+AUEM ,1/ - 1,.^ r c l, .] )!. I .,'.. I ,,.' .i :1 ALLOWING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL 6 aK