S.J.S.N Kishore vs Nenavath Balya
2026 Latest Caselaw 60 Tel

Telangana High Court

S.J.S.N Kishore vs Nenavath Balya on 25 March, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD

                                   ***

        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                            AND
          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

          CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.108 of 2026

                           25th March, 2026
Between:
Mr.S.J.S.N.Kishore
                                                          .....Appellant
                                   AND

Mr.Nenavath Balya & 5 Others
                                                       .....Respondents

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against

order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal District

Jduge, Nagarkurnool ('Trial Court') in I.A.No.261 of 2024 in

O.S.No.15 of 2024, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the I.A. filed

by the appellant/plaintiff seeking temporary injunction restraining

the respondents/defendants therein from alienating the suit

schedule proper0ty to the third parties till disposal of the main

Suit.

2. The appellant before this Court is the plaintiff before the Trial

Court who filed a Suit against the respondents/defendants for

specific performance and for a direction to the respondents to

execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the appellants by

MB,J & GPK,J

receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,34,95,000/- or in

the alternative to prayed the Trial Court to execute the registered

Sale Deed in favour of the appellant. The appellant filed an

interlocutory application ('I.A.') in the Suit under Order XXXIX Rule

1 and 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking temporary

injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit

schedule property. The said I.A. was dismissed by the Trial Court

by way of the impugned order.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and perused the impugned order.

4. Paragraph 9 of the impugned order contains clear reasons for

dismissal of the appellant's I.A. First, the Trial Court found that the

appellant, even according to his own submissions had paid an

earnest amount of only Rs.12,00,000/- which is below 10% of the

agreed total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,46,95,500/- and an

amount of Rs.1,34,95,000/- was still outstanding from the

appellant towards balance sale consideration. Second, the Trial

Court also found that the appellant had failed to adduce any

evidence or furnish any details to show that the

respondents/defendants are negotiating with third parties with

regard to suit schedule property or corroborative pleadings that

there is apprehension of the respondents alienating the suit

MB,J & GPK,J

schedule property. The Trial Court also found that the

respondents had disputed the genuiness of the Agreement of Sale

on the basis of the extent of the land and boundaries thereof and

had also contended that the Agreement of sale is a forged

document. The Trial Court accordingly found that the appellant

had failed to establish prima facie case in his favour and

consequently the balance of convenience and irreparable injury was

against the appellant/plaintiff.

5. We do not find any error in the impugned order. Counsel

appearing for the appellant has not been able to place any material

before us to show that the Trial Court erred in coming to an

erroneous the finding in respect of the material being placed before

the Trial Court.

6. We accordingly do not find any merit in the Appeal.

C.M.A.No.108 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is

accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 25th March, 2026.

BMS