The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the contract within a reasonable time, the significance of the time stipulated for performance of the contract, and the need for a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience in granting interlocutory injunctions.

Cases Referred :

A. R. Madana Gopal v M/s. Ramnath Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2021 (3) ALT (SC) 11

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v KS Infraspace LLP Limited, AIR 2020 SC 307

Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130]

Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719

Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117

Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, (1960) 3 SCR 713: AIR 1960 SC 1156

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545

Gunwanthbhai Mulchand Shah v Anton Elis Farel, 2006 AIR SC 1556

K. Ravi Prasad Reddy v G. Giridhar, 2022 LawSuit (AP) 55

Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd), Faridkot v Baldev Dass, 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1261

Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan V. Mrs. S.Rajalakshmi, AIR 2011 SC 3234

Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v Davarasetty Manmadha Rao, SA No.1282 of 2008, 2011 (6) ALT 505

R. Lakshmikantham v Devaraji, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 1366

Smt. Chand Rani v Smt. Kamal Rani, AIR 1993 SC 1742

Urvashi Aggarwal (since deceased) through Lrs v V. Kushagr Ansal (successor in interest of erstwhile Defendant No.1 Mrs. Suraj Kumari), AIR 2019 SC 1280

Vega Venkateswara Rao v Venkatarama Rao, AIR 1998 AP 6

Wander Ltd. v Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727

Advocate Appeared :

For the Appellant : Mr. G. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. M. Chalapathi Rao, Advocate

JUDGEMENT :

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Heard Mr. G. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.11.2021 in I.A. No.258 of 2021 in O.S. No.27 of 2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court–cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit viz. OS No.27 of 2021 for specific performance of an ‘Agreement for Sale’/‘Agreement to Sell’/‘Agreement of Sale’ (as variously described in the papers annexed to this appeal) dated 06.03.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’) entered into between the appellants no.1 and 2 and the respondent with regard to a piece of land. The Agreement indicates that the parties would perform their part of the obligation(s) as per the terms therein and the cutoff date was fixed as 16.11.2006 indicating the consequences which would follow in the event the respondent did not perform his part of the contract as also for the appellants no.1 and 2 if they did not perform their part of the obligations.

4. In the suit (supra), the respondent filed an application (IA No.258 of 2021) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), seeking a temporary injunction restraining the appellants, their men and agents from alienating the petition schedule property shown as ‘B’ Schedule in favour of third persons, pending the disposal of the suit. The Court below, after hearing, allowed the IA and passed an order granting temporary injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the ‘B’ Schedule property in favour of third persons, pending the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit was an abuse of the process of Court and ought to have been summarily rejected on the sole ground of delay, laches and limitation. It was contended that as per the terms of the Agreement, the exercise had to attain finality latest by 16.11.2006 and if the same could not be acted upon, depending on the default/non-performance of the respective party, the other side would face consequences, as already agreed upon vide the Agreement. Thus, it was submitted that after 16.11.2006, even if the appellants no.1 and 2 had failed to perform their obligation(s) under the Agreement, the only remedy available to the respondent was to move for an appropriate relief seeking recovery o