THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
C.M.A. No. 395 of 2022
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the
order dt.30.04.2022 in IA.No.148 of 2022 in OS.No.6 of 2022 on
the file of the VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the said suit filed for
specific performance of the agreement, dt.14.09.2021. Along with
the suit, the appellant had filed the subject application being
IA.No.148 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with
Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the
respondents/defendants restraining them from alienating the suit
schedule property.
3. By order dt.30.04.2022, the said application was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff reiterated the contentions as urged before the trial Court, and sought to set aside the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submitted that the subject property had already been alienated in favour of third parties on account of failure of the appellant to comply with the terms of the agreement, dt.14.09.2021, and therefore the appellant is required to implead the subsequent purchaser to the said proceedings.
2
6. We have taken note of the contentions urged.
7. The trial Court on consideration of the contents of the agreement, dt.14.09.2021, had noted that as per the agreement the appellant was required to make payment of 1/4th of the total consideration within one month and balance consideration within four months, which the appellant admittedly failed to comply and remained silent till 05.02.2022 by which time, the period of four months agreed for completing the transaction by paying entire sale consideration and getting the documents registered, had lapsed.
8. Though a defence was laid by the appellant before the trial Court with regard to certain payments being made to the 2nd respondent under Ex.P2 receipt, the trial Court held that the same cannot be treated as payment in relation to Ex.P1 agreement, in as much as there was no signature affixed by the 2nd respondent.
9. By taking note of the above facts, the Court below concluded that the appellant/petitioner did not comply with the basic conditions stipulated in the agreement to claim that she had prima facie case and that she would suffer more than that of the respondents if injunction is not granted.
10. The Court below also negatived the contention of the appellant/petitioner that she had expressed her ready and willingness to fulfill her obligation under the agreement by getting a legal notice issued on 05.02.2022, by which time the period specified in the agreement had elapsed. 3
11. In view of the above said categorical finding of facts recorded by the Court below while rejecting the subject application being IA.No.148 of 2022 filed in the suit, we are of the considered view that no grounds have been made out for interference by this Court in the present CMA.
12. Therefore, this CMA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J _____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J 13th March, 2023 gra 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK CMA. No. 395 of 2022 (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar) 13th March, 2023.
gra