Kamireddy Padmalatha vs Kampe Rajalingam
2023 Latest Caselaw 1179 Tel

         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.

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.

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

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