The High Court · 2025

3. Sri Eravally Lokesh, S/o Eravally Ramachary, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee All the above Appellants 1to 3 the residents of Plot No.120, Gowthami Nagar, Road No.9 Vanasthalipurarn, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Respondents/Defendants 1 to 3 AND P. Raghu Chandar Rao, S/o Venkat Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ. ^ Business, R/o. H.No. 8-7-108, Diary farm road, Swarnadhama Nagar Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ... Respondents/Petitoi ner/Plai ntiff lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order and Decree dated 11.12.2018 passed in l.A. No. 229 of 2018 in O.S. No.330 of 2O18 on the file of the court of the Vlll Additional Dir;trict and Sessions Judge, Ranga. Reddy District, At L.B. Nagar, pending disposal of the main appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for tlre Respondents: --- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.633 OF 2()19 JUDGMENT:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order passed in I.A.No.229 of 2OlB in O.S.No.330 of 2018, dated ll.l2.2Ol8 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District L.B.Nagar.

2. Appellants are the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the respondent is the petitioner - plaintiff in I.A.No.229 of 2078 in O.S.No.330 of 2018.

3. Respondent - petitioner - plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.33O of 2018 against the appellants - respondents - defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.03.2015 in respect of agricultural dry land in Survey No.285, admeasuring Ac.1-33 gts, situated at Mangalapally Patelguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with specific boundaries. Along with the suit, respondent - petitioner - plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.229 of 2018 seeking ad-interim injunction in his favour restraining the appellants - respondents - defendants from alienating the petition schedule property to third parties till disposal of the main suit. ?4 216 BRMR,J cMA.NO.633 0F 20i9 I

4. Appellants - respondents - defendants have filed their counter in I.A.No.229 of 2018 and prayed to dismiss the application filed thereon.

5. Tht: Iearned Trial Court uide order dated ll.L2.2OLa has allowed .A.No.229 of 2OLB in O.S.No.330 of 2018 filed by the responde:rt - petitioner - plaintiff granting temporary injunction in his favour restraining the appellants - respondents - defendants from alienatingl the suit schedule property to third parties till disposal of the main suit., rvhich is impugned in the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel lor the appellants submits that the order of the learned Trial Court is vitiated by various irregularities and surmises, learned Trial Court ought to have seen that there is no agreement of sale ente.:ed by the appellants - respondents - defendants with the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff on 24.O3.2015 and the respondent - petitioner plaintiff has created the agreement of sale dated

24.03.201.5. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the appellantrl - respondents - defendants are not in peaceful possession of the en:ire property and they are in possession of the part of the property only, the appellants have narrated all the facts to their counsel on record but counsel could not brought to the notice of the court abcut the memorandum of understanding dated 24.o3.2o15 for clearance'o=f"the dispute and handing over of the encroached area by -/ 316 BRMR,J cMA.NO.633 0F 2019 the neighbouring land owners and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

7. Notice to the respondent is served and he failed to appear before the Court.

8.1 It is the contention of the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff in the plaint that the appellants - respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - defendant Nos.l .to 3 are the owners and pattedars of the plaint schedule property, as they are in need of funds offered to seIl an extent of Ac.1- O8 gts of land by appellant No. i - respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 and an extent of Ac.0-25 gts by the appellant Nos.2 and 3 respondent Nos.2 and 3 - defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and entered into an agreement of sale on 24.03.2015. The property is valued at Rs.70,0O,O00/- and the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff has paid Rs.10,OO,O00/- though cheque No.165780, dated 24.O3.2O15 and has paid Rs.5,O0,00O/- through cheque No.206245, dated 10.04.2015.

8.2 It is further stated in the plaint that respondent - petitioner - plaintiff has got issued legal notice dated O7.O3.2O|B calling the appellants herein - respondents - defendants to come forward to receive balance of sale consideration and to execute registered sale d.eed in favour of the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff. g. Ex.Al - agreement of sale dated 24.03.2005, Ex.A2 -- Office copy of legal notice dated O7.O3.2O18 got issued by the respondent - '\._. / 416 BRMR,J CMA.NO.633 0F 2019 J '., petitioner', Ex.A3 - postal receipts, Ex.A4 reply notice dated

12.03.2018 got issued by the appellants - respondents and Ex.AS- certified copy of the registered gift deed dated O7.O2.2Oll uide document No.496 of 20 1 I executed by one E.Kistaiah in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein [appellant Nos:2 and 3 herein] are marked i:r [.A.No.229 of 2018.

10.1 Lee rned Trial Court after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties in I.A.No.229 of 2018 arrived at a conclusion at parag:aph No.9 that on one hand appellants - respondents - defendants contended that they never offered at sell the schedule property to the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff much less for a considere,tion of Rs.7O,O0,00O/- and on the other hand contended that respcndent - petitioner - plaintiff failed to comply the class No.2 of the agreement of sale dated 24.03.2025 [Ex.All that the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.55,OO,000/- is liable to be paid by him within six months from the date of agreement of sale i.e.,

24.O3.2015. lO.2 The: learned Trial Court further observed in paragraph No.12 that respondent herein - petitioner - plaintiff has made out prima facie casr: that there is a serious disputed question to be determined in the mein suit as to whether appellants - respondents - defendants were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract even though ttLe respondent - petitioner - plaintiff was ready and willinglo -t' s/6 BRMR,J cMA.NO.633 0F 20r9 perform his part of contract. Learned Trial Court further observed that balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff since the appellants - respondents - defendants admittedly received advance sale consideration amount of Rs.15,00,OO0 l- from the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff under Ex..Al and till date of issuing legal notice under Ex.A2. I 1. As the suit filed by the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff is for specific performance of contract, the documents filed by him supports his contentions that he entered into an agreement of sale with the appellants - respondents - defendants under Ex.Al, he also got issued legal notice under Dx.A2 and he also made payments by way of cheque which are reflected in the agreement with specific dates for Rs.10,0O,OO0/- and Rs.5,OO,000/-, the learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that respondent - petitioner - plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in his favour. If the appellants - respondents - defendants alienates the propert5r to third parties it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and linally allowed application filed by the respondent - petitioner - plaintiff.

12. On perusing the order passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properly exercised its jurisdiction while granting order for injunction not to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties by appellants - respondent Nos.l to 3 - defendant Nos.1 to 3. This Court is not ./ -/ BRMR,J cMA.NO.633 0F 2019 1 inclined to interfere with same and the appellants - respondents - defendanl.s have not made out any case to set aside the order.

13. Learnecl counsel for the appeliants submits that suit in O.S.No.3!i0 of 2018 pending on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Re.nga Reddl'District is transferred on administrative grounds to the oourt of xv Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam and is renumbered as O.S.NO. 149 of 2024.

14. sinr;e the original suit is of the year 2or8, this court is of the view that the learned Trial court shall dispose of the case bv giving opportunitir to the parties by leading their evidencing within a period of six morLths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. with the above observations, the civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous applicatior/s shall stand closed. SD/. K.SHYLESHI INT REGI CTION OFFICER , at L.B. Nagar. //TRUE COPY/ To, 1 . The Vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy 2. One CC;to SRI AKKAM ESHWAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two C[t Copies NVB/psl W HIGH COURT DATED:3;1 11012025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.633 of 2019 THE S t o * t**, 1t iln ?ll?f, * c DISPOSII{G THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL ^"t@&