Telangana High Court
Mohd Imamuddin vs Nukala Ravinder Reddy on 7 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
A.S.NO.875 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant under Section
96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing
the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge
at Jangaon, Warangal District in OS.No.111 of 2012, dated
30.06.2017.
2. Appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the
plaintiff in OS.No.111 of 2012.
3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of
contract in respect of agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012.
3.2. It is stated in the plaint that the appellant-defendant is the
absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property
admeasuring Acs.03-21 guntas in Survey No.156, situated at
Laxmapuram Village and he offered to sell the same to the
respondent-plaintiff, after deliberations the sale consideration is
fixed at Rs.2,21,000/-per acre, respondent-plaintiff agreed to
purchase the same and he paid an amount of Rs.4,500/- to the
appellant-defendant as advance, agreement came to be executed
on 31.08.2012.
2/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
3.3. As per the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012,
Rs.1,00,000/- has to be paid on 09.09.2012, half of the sale
consideration has to be paid within one month and the remaining
sale consideration to be paid in the month of December, 2012.
Respondent-plaintiff in performance of his part of contract,
approached the appellant-defendant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on
09.09.2012, but he refused to receive the same. Respondent-
plaintiff once again approached the appellant-defendant in the first
week of October, 2012 and requested him to receive the sale
consideration and register the sale deed but he refused to receive
the amount. As the appellant-defendant is avoiding to perform his
part of contract on one pretext or the other, the respondent-
plaintiff has got issued legal notice on 16.10.2012 demanding the
appellant-defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and
perform his part of contract, as he failed to do so, respondent-
plaintiff filed the suit.
4. Appellant-defendant filed his written statement and denied
the contents of the plaint in toto and further contended that he has
not executed any document in favour of the respondent-plaintiff
and the alleged document is a created one.
3/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012
is true, legal, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to
perform his part of contract?
3. Whether the defendant has committed breach of
contract?
4. Whether there is no cause of action to the plaintiff
to file the suit?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific
performance as prayed for?
6. To what relief?
6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and also examined
PW.2-Kola Narsi Reddy and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Appellant is
examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B8. It is apt to
mention here that Ex.A5 is marked in the cross-examination of
DW.1.
7. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced
by the parties and after going through the documents marked
thereon has decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant
(appellant herein) to execute regular sale deed by receiving the
balance sale consideration within 2 months, failing which the
plaintiff (respondent herein) shall proceed as per law.
8.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that
the learned trial Court ought to have seen that in a suit for specific
4/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
performance of contract, the burden lies on the respondent-
plaintiff to prove execution of agreement of sale. But in the instant
case, the respondent-plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove the
agreement of sale and the Court below simply held that the
appellant-defendant is the owner of the property, came to a
conclusion that there was a proposal and offer to sell the suit
schedule property by the appellant-defendant to the respondent-
plaintiff.
8.2. The Court below ought to have seen that except the
testimony of PW.2, there is nothing on record to show that the
agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012 was executed and the learned
trial Court wrongly came to a conclusion that the respondent-
plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and
decided issue No.1 in favour of respondent-plaintiff in the absence
of any evidence to that effect.
8.3. The Court below passed the judgment on assumptions and
presumptions and the findings on all the issues are based on
probabilities but there is no evidence for recording the said finding
and also failed to see that the suit has been filed by the
respondent-plaintiff on false and created document. In support of
his contention, he relied on the decisions in the cases of
(1) Pemmada Prabhakar and Others Vs. Youngmen's Vysya
5/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
Association and Others 1 , (2) Nanjappan Vs. Ramasamy and
Another 2 , (3) Satish Kumar Vs. Karan Singh and Another 3 ,
(4) Hemanta Mondal and Others Vs. Ganesh Chandra Naskar 4.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
appellant-defendant during pendency of the case has alienated an
extent of Ac.0-07 ½ guntas in Survey No.156 to Government of
Telangana through Irrigation and Command Area Development
represented by its Executive Engineer as per Ex.A5. Section 12(2)
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that where a party to a
contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, but the
part which must be left unperformed by only a small proportion to
the whole in value and admits of compensation in money, the
Court may, at the suit of either party, direct the specific
performance of so much of the contract as can be performed.
Counsel further submits that the appellant-defendant has not
taken specific plea in the written statement about the boundaries
of suit schedule property. So also no ground is taken in the
grounds of Appeal. In support of his contention has placed reliance
on the decisions in (1) Baikunthi Devi and Others Vs. Mahendra
(2015) 5 SCC 355
(2015) 14 SCC 341
(2016) 4 SCC 352
(2016) 1 SCC 567
6/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
Nath and another 5 , (2) Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and
Another 6, (3) Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Others Vs. Shamlal
Uddavadas Wadhwa and Others 7.
10. Learned counsel have filed their written submissions in
support of their contentions.
11. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.
12. Now the points for consideration are:
1. Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for specific
performance of contract in respect of the agreement of
sale dated 31.08.2012 for the rest of the portion after
deleting the area covered under Ex.A5 i.e., 7 ½ guntas as
per Section 12 (2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963?
2. Whether the learned trial Court has considered Section
12 (2) of Specific Relief Act while disposing of the case
while considering Ex.A5?
3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial Court in OS.No.111 of 2012 dated 30.06.2017 suffers
from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it requires
interference of this Court?
13. Before answering the contentions raised by the counsel on
record, it is apt to refer Section 12(2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963,
which reads as under:
(1977) 2 SCC 496 : 1977 SCC OnLine SC 140
(2008) 17 SCC 491 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 927 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1445
(2008) 12 SCC 67 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 136
7/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
"12. Specific performance of part of contract:
(1) ------
(2) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole
of his part of it, but the part which must be left unperformed
by only a small proportion to the whole in value and admits of
compensation in money, the court may, at the suit of either
party, direct the specific performance of so much of the
contract as can be performed, and award compensation in
money for the deficiency".
14. The prayer in the suit is as under:
i) Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff directing the
defendant to come and execute a registered sale deed
in favour of plaintiff after receipt of remaining sale
consideration of Rs.7,74,525/-.
ii) In case the defendant fails to execute the above said
deed as directed by the Court, the Court may itself
execute the sale deed for and on behalf of the
defendant in respect of the suit schedule land at the
costs of the plaintiff.
15. The suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff before
amendment to the Specific Relief Act.
16. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 prior to amendment
reads as under:
"20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance.-
8/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
(1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is
discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief
merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the
court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by
judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal.
(2) The following are cases in which the court may properly
exercise discretion not to decree specific performance:-
(a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties
at the time of entering into the contract or the other
circumstances under which the contract was entered into are
such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an
unfair advantage over the defendant; or
(b) where the performance of the contract would involve some
hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee, whereas its
non-performance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff;
or
(c) where the defendant entered into the contract under
circumstances which though not rendering the contract voidable,
makes it inequitable to enforce specific performance.
Explanation 1- Mere inadequacy of consideration, or the mere
fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident
in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair
advantage within the meaning of clause (a) or hardship within
the meaning of clause (b).
Explanation 2- The question whether the performance of a
contract would involve hardship on the defendant within the
meaning of clause (b) shall, except in cases where the hardship
has resulted from any act of the plaintiff subsequent to the
contract, be determined with reference to the circumstances
existing at the time of the contract.
9/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
(3) The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific
performance in any case where the plaintiff has done substantial
acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of
specific performance.
(4) The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of
a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not
enforceable at the instance of the party."
POINT NOS.1 TO 3:
17. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff as PW.1 is the same
with that of his pleadings. In his cross-examination, he stated that
he do not know the total extent of the land in Sy.No.156 so also he
do not know the sub-division number exists and Ex.A1 does not
show the boundaries. The execution of Ex.A1 took place in the
house of Dr.Raju of Bandanagaram Village, at the time of sale
negotiations pahanies, patta passbooks pertaining to the schedule
property where shown to him and the total sale consideration is
Rs.7,79,025/- and he has shown his readiness to pay the balance
sale consideration by showing the cash before the elders by name
Narsi Reddy, Dr.Raju. The scribe of Ex.A1 is Dr.Raju and the
attesting witnesses are K.Narsi Reddy, Bathini Ramulu and
Ch.Surender Reddy. K.Narsi Reddy signed on Ex.A1 as first
attestor and that he has not mentioned in legal notice (Ex.A2) as
well as in the plaint that Ex.A1 was executed in the presence of all
the said persons. Family members of the defendant (appellant
10/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
herein) were not present at the time of execution of the documents.
Respondent-plaintiff denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is a created
document and the signature of the appellant-defendant is forged.
18.1. PW.2-Narsi Reddy is the attestor to Ex.A1. He deposed that
the appellant-defendant for his financial necessities has offered to
sell the schedule property to the respondent-plaintiff and the
respondent-plaintiff agreed to purchase the same i.e., land
admeasuring Acs.3-21 guntas in Survey No.156 situated at
Laxmapuram Village, Bachannapet Mandal, Warangal District and
the rate was fixed at Rs.2,21,000/- per acre. The plaintiff
(respondent herein) paid an amount of Rs.4,500/- to the defendant
(appellant herein), after receipt of the said amount defendant
(appellant herein) executed agreement of sale in favour of the
plaintiff (respondent herein ) on 31.08.2012. As per the terms of
sale agreement, plaintiff (respondent herein) has approached the
defendant (appellant herein) within stipulated period along with
installment amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.09.2012 and requested
the defendant to receive the amount and to pass a receipt but he
has refused to receive the same and postponed the matter on one
or the other pretext. Respondent-Plaintiff has again approached
the appellant-defendant along with entire sale consideration
amount and requested him to receive the same and to register the
11/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
property in favour of the respondent-plaintiff in the first week of
October, 2012, but the appellant-defendant has refused the same.
Dr.Raju has scribed Ex.A1, transaction has taken place in his
presence and Ex.A1 is prepared in the house of Dr.Raju. Himself,
Bathini Ramulu, Challa Sudhakar Reddy are the attestors to
Ex.A1.
18.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is the first
attestor to Ex.A1 and the transaction under Ex.A1 took place in
the house of RMP Doctor by name Dr.Raju. Ex.A1 is prepared on a
white paper and Laxmapur Revenue Circle is not mentioned.
Boundaries of the property are also not mentioned in Ex.A1 and
the appellant-defendant has got land in one compact block on the
day of Ex.A1, advance amount of Rs.4,500/- is first paid and the
total sale consideration of the property is Rs.7,79,025/- @
Rs.2,21,000/- per acre. As per Ex.A1 the balance sale
consideration has to be paid in the month of December, 2012.
PW.2 denied the suggestion that on 09.09.2012 the plaintiff was
not ready to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and he never agreed to pay the
balance sale consideration on October, 2012. He also denied the
suggestion that Ex.A1 was not drafted in his presence and the
appellant-defendant never sold the property under Ex.A1 nor
12/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
executed the document and the agreement of sale is a created one
to grab the schedule property of the appellant-defendant.
19. Vendee committing breach of agreement for sale of
immovable property, not entitled to decree of specific performance
of agreement - Failure of vendee to pay installments of sale
consideration within periods as stipulated in deed of sale
agreement, amounted to breach of terms of agreement - Hence,
plaintiff vendee disentitled to decree of specific performance - See
(Pemmada Prabhakar1).
20. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to aver
and prove with satisfactory evidence that he was always ready and
willing to perform his part of contract at all material time as
mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 - See (Nanjappan2).
21. It is well settled that the jurisdiction to order specific
performance of contract is based on the existence of a valid and
enforceable contract. Where a valid and enforceable contract has
not been made, the court will not make a contract for them.
Specific performance will not be ordered if the contract itself
suffers from some defect which makes the contract invalid or
unenforceable. The discretion of the court will not be there even
13/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
though the contract is otherwise valid and enforceable - See
(Satish Kumar3).
22.1 Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 gives discretion to
the court, and provides that the court is not bound to grant relief
of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so.
It further provides that the discretion is not to be exercised
arbitrarily but guided by judicial principles. Sub-section (2) of
Section 20 enumerates three conditions when discretion is not to
be exercised to grant decree of specific performance.
22.2 In the present case, it appears that possession was not given
to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement, nor the
area of land agreed to be sold was clear, as such, it cannot be said
that the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses due
to expenditure in constructions, etc., in consequence of a contract
capable of specific performance. The direction given by the High
Court in the impugned order shows that the measurements of land
actually agreed to be sold, are not final - See (Hemanta Mondal and
others4).
23.1. The evidence of the appellant-defendant is the same as that
of his written statement and he further stated in his chief affidavit
that the suit schedule land is the only source of income to his
14/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
livelihood and the present market value is more than Rs.50 Lakhs
and the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit with malafied
intention.
23.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he possess land of
Acs.03-00 guntas in Survey No.156/G and 156/H situated at
Laxmapur and he do not possess any other land except the suit
property and he has purchased the same from one B.Ramalu.
Himself and the plaintiff (respondent herein) are close friends and
he has not signed on any document. He has received the legal
notice got issued by the plaintiff (respondent herein) under Ex.A2,
he informed his Advocate about the notice and he did not give any
reply and the subject land is worth Rs.50 Lakhs as of now. He was
confronted with the purported signature on Ex.A1 and was asked
to read the signature, he read it as "Mohammed" and likewise, the
W.S. filed by him was confronted and he was asked to read the
Urdu signature and the witness read it as "Mohammed
Imamuddin" and also admitted his signature in the chief affidavit,
read it as "Mohammed Imamuddin" and at present he possessed
Acs.03-21 guntas of land and he handed over an extent of 7 ½
guntas to the Government under Acquisition for Canal through a
registered sale deed document No.2986 of 2016 dated 04.05.2016
which is Ex.A5. He admitted that Ac.0-07 ½ guntas forms part of
15/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
Acs.03-21 guntas of the suit schedule property, so far he has not
received any compensation from the Land Acquisition
Officer/Government as the plaintiff (respondent herein) objected by
causing legal notice to the Government during pendency of the
suit. DW.1 denied the suggestion that he sold the suit schedule
property under Ex.A1 to the plaintiff (respondent herein) on
31.08.2012 in the presence of PW.2, Dr. Raju, Bathini Ramulu and
Challa Surender Reddy and the rate was fixed at Rs.2,21,000/- per
acre and he has received Rs.4,500/- as token amount and signed
on the document. He also denied the suggestion that he has not
mentioned in his chief affidavit or in the written statement that
Survey No.156 does not belong to him and that he is in a habit of
putting his signatures differently in different documents and
changed his signatures for the purpose of the case.
24.1. Ex.A1 does not contain the schedule for Acs.03-25 guntas.
So also it does not contain the name of the village where the
property is situated. Ex.A1 is executed on 31.08.2012 which goes
to show that the sale price is fixed at Rs.2,21,000/- per acre and
an amount of Rs.4,500/- is paid on the date of execution of the
document. The document further goes to show that Rs.1,00,000/-
has to be paid on 09.09.2012 and 50% of the amount has to be
16/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
paid within one month thereafter including Rs.1,00,000/- and by
December, 2012, entire amount has to be paid.
24.2. Ex.A2 is the legal notice got issued by the respondent-
plaintiff to the appellant-defendant dated 16.10.2012. As per Ex.A2
respondent-plaintiff has arranged Rs.1,00,000/- and approached
the defendant (appellant herein) on 09.09.2012 but the defendant
has postponed the same on one or the other reason. Notice further
goes to show that respondent-plaintiff has arranged the entire
balance sale consideration amount and he is ready to pay the same
as per the agreement dated 31.08.2012 and demanded the
appellant- defendant to come to the Sub-Registrar office, Cherial
and register the land. Ex.A3 is the postal receipt and Ex.A4 is the
acknowledgement card. Ex.A5 is C.C. of registered sale deed dated
04.05.2016 vide document No.2986 of 2016.
25. Ex.B1 is the 1-B (ROR) Namuna of the appellant-defendant.
Exs.B2 to B5 are Mee-seva pahanies for the year 1424 Fasli and
1425 Fasli in respect of Survey No.156/G and 156/H/1 stands in
the name of the appellant-defendant. Ex.B6 is the 1-B (ROR)
Namuna of Gulla Devraju, Exs.B7 and B8 are the pahanies for the
year 1424 Fasli and 1425 Fasli in Survey No.156.
17/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
26. Actually, a tiny bit was also due to the first respondent, but
he is willing to give it up. Such a situation is covered by Section
12(2), Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the first respondent is entitled
to enforce specifically the contract - See (Baikunthi Devi5).
27. No amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in
the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief. Only in
exceptional cases, can this general rule be deviated from, if the
Court is fully satisfied that the pleadings and issues generally
cover the case subsequently put forward and that the parties being
conscious of the issue, had led evidence on such issue - See
(Bachhaj Nahar6).
28. The agreement to sale was executed for family necessity and
the appellants cannot get out of it. But at the same time it is also
true that the agreement to sell was executed way back in the year
1982. Since after 1982, the value of the real estate has shot up
very high, therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 20
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the Court would like to be equitable
and would not allow the sale of property to be executed for a sum
of Rs 1,20,000/-. The litigation has prolonged for almost 25 years
and now at last reached at the end of the journey. Therefore, the
equity between the parties has to be settled. Because of the
18/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
passage of time the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs 5 lakhs in
addition to Rs 1,20,000/- - See (Pratap Lakshman Muchandi7).
29. It is apt to note here that after the conclusion of the evidence
of PWs.1 and 2, appellant-defendant has sold Ac.0-07 ½ guntas of
land in favour of Government of Telangana State through Irrigation
and CAD Department through a registered sale deed dated
04.05.2016 vide document No.2986 of 2016 with specific
boundaries in Survey No.156 under Ex.A5. In Ex.A5 Katha
number is shown as 458 which is matching with Katha number of
Exs.B1 to B5. Appellant-defendant has admitted in his cross-
examination that he sold Ac.0-07 ½ guntas of land to the
Government from Acs.03-21 guntas.
30. Ex.A5 is marked through DW.1 on 09.03.2017. Respondent-
plaintiff is aware that the appellant-defendant has sold Ac.0-07 ½
guntas of land out of Survey No.156, in spite of it he kept silent
and did not take any steps before the learned trial Court nor it is
the case of the respondent-plaintiff before the trial Court that they
are entitled for specific performance of contract in respect of the
rest of the property as per Section 12 (2) of Special Relief Act, 1963.
31. As stated supra, Ex.A1 does not have any boundaries and
there is no explanation from the respondent-plaintiff how the
19/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
boundaries were arrived in the plaint. The respondent-plaintiff for
the first time in the Appeal contended that they are entitled for
specific performance of contract for rest of the property under
Section 12 (2) of the Act.
32. As per Ex.A1, the total sale consideration of the property is
Rs.7,79,025/-. Respondent-plaintiff has paid pittance amount of
Rs.4,500/- only. Though the respondent-plaintiff averred in the
plaint that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of
contract but there is no evidence on record to show that the
respondent-plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in
consequences of a contract capable of specific performance. If a
party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of its part and
the part which is left unperformed forms a considerable part of the
contractual obligations. As stated supra, respondent-plaintiff was
aware that the appellant-defendant has sold Acs.0-07 ½ guntas of
land to the Government and furthermore, Ex.A1 is scribed on a
white paper subsequently stamp duty and penalty is paid, which
does not have boundaries.
33. The learned trial Court has not considered Ex.A5 while
decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract nor the
respondent-plaintiff's counsel put forth that they are entitled for
rest of the property for specific performance of contract. The
20/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
learned trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction while decreeing
a suit for specific performance. The appellant-defendant has put
up a defence in his written statement that he has not executed
Ex.A1 document.
34. The decision cited by the respondent's counsel stated supra
in Para No.9 are not applicable to the case on hand in view of the
fact that the facts in the present case do not match with the facts
of the above said decisions.
35. The proposition laid down in Pemmada Prabhakar1,
Nanjappan2 and Satish Kumar3 is not in dispute.
36. The decision cited in Hemanta Mondal4 is applicable to the
case on hand as the learned trial Court failed to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act while
decreeing the suit.
37. Respondent-plaintiff has kept silent from 04.05.2016 and
proceeded further with the suit without taking any steps nor
projected their arguments that they are entitled for the rest of the
property under Section 12 (2) of Specific Relief Act.
38. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view
that the learned trial Court has not properly exercised its
21/21 BRMR,J
AS.No.875_2017
jurisdiction while declaring the suit for specific performance and
there is no material on record to show that the respondent-plaintiff
has done substantial acts or suffered losses and consequences of
the contract capable of specific performance.
39. Respondent-plaintiff has not sought for return - refund of
earnest money as contemplated under Section 22 of Specific Relief
Act, 1963. So also has not claimed any compensation under
Section 21 of the Act. Hence, this Court is estopped from awarding
compensation or refund of earnest money in absence of any prayer.
Hence, points are answered accordingly.
40. In the result, appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jangan in OS No.111
of 2012, dated 30.06.2017 is set aside. Consequently, the suit of
the plaintiff is dismissed without costs.
Interim Orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous
application/s stands closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
7th November, 2025.
PLV
