Telangana High Court
Ananya Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Hsr Homes Pvt. Ltd. on 12 February, 2025
Author: T.Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
And
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.519 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed assailing the
order dated 04-07-2024 passed in I.A.No.734 of 2024 in
O.S.No.416 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. The appellants herein are respondents in the underlying
Interlocutory Application and defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit
filed by the 1st respondent herein for specific performance of an
agreement of sale dated 14-09-2018.
3. Pending consideration of the suit, the 1st respondent herein
had filed the underlying Interlocutory Application under Order
39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to grant ad interim injunction restraining
the appellants herein from alienating the suit schedule property
to third parties.
4. The trial Court by considering that the plaintiff in the suit
(respondent No.1 herein) has instituted the suit on the basis of
registered agreement of sale dated 14-09-2018 and also the bank
statements showing payment of part consideration, had granted
ex parte ad interim injunction in respect of suit schedule
property.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and perused the
record. Though, the name of learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents is shown in the cause list, there is no
representation on their behalf.
6. Appellants contend that the trial Court erred in granting ex
parte ad interim injunction without hearing the appellants, who
are arrayed as respondents/defendants in the suit and also
without recording valid reasons for grant of said injunction.
7. The appellants contend that since the impugned order does
not record reasons for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, the
said order is contrary to the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC,
and is thus, liable to be set aside.
8. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that the trial
Court, without noting that the 1st respondent herein having
satisfied the three necessary concomitants for grant of injunction
viz., (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience and (c)
irreparable loss, had granted ex parte ad interim injunction
restraining the appellants herein from alienating or creating third
party interest in respect of the suit schedule property.
9. The appellants further contend that it is undergoing
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by way of an
order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad
Bench-II (NCLT) dated 01-03-2022 under Section 9 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, wherein a resolution
application has been submitted by the Consortium of the present
Promoters, which has been duly approved by the NCLT on
23-02-2023; and by virtue of the resolution process before the
NCLT, all the claims pending in respect of the Company would
stand extinguished, and thus, the suit filed by the 1st respondent
herein for specific performance has to fail.
10. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that since, the
impugned order does not take the aforesaid fact into
consideration, the order granting ex parte ad interim injunction
passed in the underlying Interlocutory Application is liable to be
set aside.
11. We have taken note of the contentions urged.
12. At the out set, it is to be noted that the order granting
ex parte ad interim injunction was passed on 04-07-2024 by the
trial Court restraining the appellants herein from alienating or
creating any third party interest in respect of the suit schedule
property till 18-07-2024 and directed the matter to be called
again on 18-07-2024.
13. Though, on behalf of the appellants it is contended that the
trial Court without giving sufficient time to the appellants herein
had set them ex parte on the second date of hearing itself and
thereafter ex parte ad interim injunction is being extended from
time to time, it is to be noted that if the appellants are set
ex parte in the aforesaid proceedings by the trial Court, the
appellants are required to take steps to get the aforesaid order
setting them ex parte set aside.
14. Further, the appellants by taking steps to get the order
setting them ex parte set aside, are required to file counter in the
underlying Interlocutory Application and seek for vacating /
modifying the order passed in the underlying Interlocutory
Application.
15. Though, on behalf of the appellants it is contended that on
account of appellants being set ex parte on the second date of
hearing itself, they are not in a position to file counter in the
underlying Interlocutory Application, even though an
Interlocutory Application is filed to set aside the order setting the
appellants ex parte, this Court of the view that the same cannot
be considered as a ground or reason for the appellants to
approach this Court by the present Appeal against the order of
ex parte ad interim injunction without availing the remedy
provided under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC.
16. Since, the appellants claims of having filed an application to
set aside the order setting them ex parte, which would enable
them to take steps for filing counter in the underlying
Interlocutory Application, whereunder an order of ex parte ad
interim injunction is granted in favour of the 1st respondent
herein, this Court is of the view that the trial Court should be
directed to dispose of the Interlocutory Application filed by the
appellants herein under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside
the order by which the appellants herein were set ex parte, and
also to dispose of Interlocutory Application, if any filed against
the order of ex parte ad interim injunction granted in favour of
the 1st respondent herein in a time bound manner.
17. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the
Interlocutory Application filed by the appellants herein against
the order setting them ex parte as well as the order granting
ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the 1st respondent
herein, on merits within a period of eight (08) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. Subject to above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is disposed of. No costs.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed.
____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
_________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
Date: 12.02 .2025
Vsv/Gra
