Jalaluddin Hussaini vs Chitturi Venkata Srinivasa Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 6668 Tel

      THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.468 OF 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr.SA,J)

      This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule

1 of CPC, is filed by the appellant/defendant, aggrieved by the

order and decree, dated 05.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.309 of

2018 in O.S.No.81 of 2018 by the XII Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad, whereby the

subject application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, was

allowed granting ad interim injunction restraining the

appellant/defendant from alienating the petition schedule

property in favour of third party pending disposal of the

subject suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused

the record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant had raised

several contentions in relation to the time fixed to pay the

balance sale consideration of Rs.99,87,500/- from the date of

agreement, i.e., 22.08.2016. He further contended that the

subject suit is filed in the year 2018. A legal notice, dated

13.04.2018, was issued with a delay of 16 months and above.

In view of these circumstances, there is no prima facie case

and balance of convenience in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff to seek interim relief as prayed for and

ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order and dismiss

the subject I.A.No.309 of 2018.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff would contend that there is agreement of

sale, dated 22.08.2016. Repeatedly, the respondent/plaintiff

approached the appellant/defendant to receive balance sale

consideration and register a proper conveyance deed in his

favour, but the appellant/defendant delayed and denied the

same. Always, the respondent/plaintiff is willing to perform

his part of contract. There are laches and delay on the part

of the appellant/defendant and ultimately prayed to dismiss

the appeal.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the subject

impugned order was passed on 05.08.2019. The present CMA

is filed with a delay of 364 days and this Court to determine

the subject lis on merits, was pleased to allow the said

I.A.No.1 of 2022. The impugned order is in force since 3½

years and further, the subject suit is ripen for trial. It is

brought to the notice of this Court that the trial in the subject

suit will be commenced on 27.12.2022. In view of these

circumstances, it is not appropriate to this Court to go into the

merits of the case and express its opinion. However, a

direction to dispose of the subject suit would suffice.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of directing the

Court below to dispose of the subject suit, as expeditiously as

possible, preferably, within a period of three(3) months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court below

shall not get influenced by any of the observations made in

the impugned order dated 05.08.2019 and it has to dispose of

the subject suit on conclusion of trial basing on the merits of

the case.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J Date: 09.12.2022 ssp