Telangana High Court
N. Venkata Narsimham vs K. Sripal Reddy on 23 January, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.427 OF 2024 & X-OBJ.No.67 of 2024
Mr. P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
The appellants before us are the unsuccessful plaintiffs in a
Suit for specific performance. The Suit (O.S.No.125 of 2017) was
partly decreed by the Trial Court by a judgment dated 03.04.2024
by directing the defendants (respondents before us) to refund the
amount of Rs.2,60,00,000/- received by them as advance sale
consideration to the plaintiffs along with interest @ 18% per
annum.
2. The case of the appellants as argued by learned counsel
appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs, is that the Trial Court
refused to grant specific performance of the Suit on the sole ground
of a Suit pending before the Additional District Court, Rangareddy
District at Vikarabad (O.S.No.57 of 2018). Counsel submits that
O.S.No.57 of 2018 could not have had any bearing on the Suit filed
by the appellants (O.S.No.125 of 2017) for specific performance
since none of the plaintiffs were parties to the other Suit. The
defendant No.2 in O.S.No.125 of 2017 was the sole plaintiff in the
other Suit which was filed against third parties.
3. Counsel places a few of the clauses from the Agreement of
Sale executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 on
26.10.2016 to urge that the defendant No.1 was in reach of those
conditions and also unfairly alienated the Suit in favour of his
brother, the defendant No.2.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
defendants/respondents submits that the respondents have also
filed Cross-objections against the impugned judgment on the
ground that the Trial Court failed to consider the crucial aspect of
readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs in respect of
the Agreement of Sale. Counsel places the second issue framed by
the Trial Court in the impugned judgment with regard to this aspect
but submits that the impugned judgment does not contain any
discussion on the aspect of readiness and willingness which is a
determinant of whether a person should be granted specific
performance of contract.
5. We have heard learned counsel and learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the parties. We note that both the parties have a
substantial ground for being aggrieved with the impugned
judgment. The discussion as to how the other Suit filed by the
defendant No.2 has any bearing on the plaintiffs' Suit and whether
the plaintiffs were at all ready and willing to perform their part of
the contractual obligations under the Agreement of Sale is absent in
the Trial Court judgment. We hence deem it fit to remand the
matter to the Trial Court for a fresh decision on the merits of the
case. Needless to say, none of the parties shall seek any
adjournment and the Trial Court is directed to make an effort to
conclude hearing of the Suit and pronounce its judgment within 12
weeks from 27.01.2025. This Order shall be produced before the
Trial Court by 27.01.2025 for a fresh hearing. We make it clear that
the jurisdictional Court will hear the Suit.
5. Appeal Suit No.427 of 2024 and the Cross-objection No.67 of
2024 are disposed of in terms of the above. Since we find that the
Status quo order granted in favour of appellant continued from 2017
to 2024, the parties shall continue to comply with the said order
until further orders are passed by the Trial Court. There shall be no
order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
________________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
Date: 23.01.2025
TRI/CHS
