Mr. Byra Dileep Chakravarthy vs Marathati Sakunthala
2022 Latest Caselaw 3791 Tel

                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                                  AND
               HON'BLE SMT DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI


            CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.264 of 2022
                            Date:20.07.2022

Between:

Mr. Byra Dileep Chakravarthy S/o.Chenchu Krishnaiah,
Aged about 54 yrs, Hindu, Business,
Residing at Plot No.26, Nagarjuna Hills,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad & another
                                         .....Appellants

     And

Marathati Sakunthala W/o.Sri Ramadutha,
Aged about 50 yrs, Hindu, Housewife,
Residing at Plot No.50, Kokapet, Magda Colony, Rajendranagar,
Gandipet, R.R.District 500075,
Telangana State
                                         .....Respondent

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SMT DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.264 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated

15.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.1898 of 2019 in O.S.No.797 of 2019 on the file

of Principal District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.797 of 2019 in the Court of Principal

District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, to grant decree of specific

performance of agreement of sale on the suit schedule land. She filed

I.A.No.1898 of 2019 praying to grant injunction pending consideration of the

suit. In the said I.A., it is the specific case of the appellants/respondents

that they have already sold the suit schedule land much prior to institution

of suit and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by granting

injunction prayed by the plaintiff. Having realized that the suit schedule

land was already sold to third parties, plaintiff filed I.A.No.749 of 2020 to

implead the subsequent purchasers. This fact was also noticed by the trial

Court, but strangely passed an order against the appellants herein

restraining them from alienating the petition schedule property in any

manner.

3. As noticed above, by the time the order was passed, the property was

already sold by the appellants herein and therefore, the question of

restraining them from alienating would not arise. Having noticed the fact

that property was sold; that plaintiff already filed interlocutory application,

the trial Court without considering I.A.No.749 of 2020 straight away passed

orders in I.A.No.1898 of 2019.

4. Having regard to the fact that the appellants have already sold land

even before the suit was instituted, the order of trial Court is not

sustainable. It is accordingly, set aside.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. However, this

order does not come in the way of plaintiff prosecuting I.A.No.749 of 2020

and to seek appropriate orders from the trial Court. Pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

_________________________ DR. G.RADHA RANI, J 20th July, 2022 Rds