JUDGMENT :

KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.

1. This CMA is filed, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, challenging the order and decree dated 18.02.2022 passed in IA No. 517 of 2020 in OS No. 119 of 2020 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein temporary injunction was granted restraining the appellant herein from alienating the petition schedule properties till the disposal of the suit.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent in IA No. 517 of 2020 and defendant in OS No. 119 of 2020. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the said IA and plaintiff in the said suit.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaintiff filed the above suit ‘for specific performance of contract of sale’ dated 08.12.2018 and to direct the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property or in the alternative to refund Rs. 91,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization.

5. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint is that the defendant sold the plaint schedule property under a contract of sale dated 08.12.2018 for a consideration of Rs. 1.00 Crore and the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 67,00,000/- to the defendant towards promissory notes debts due to the plaintiff by the defendant and the promissory notes were cancelled. The plaintiff also paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards the said sale. It was further averred that the plaintiff has to pay the balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- within 11 months and it is also stated that he paid further amounts on subsequent dates and in all he paid an amount of Rs. 91,00,000/- to the defendant towards sale consideration and that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. A registered legal notice was issued on 17.11.2020 and rejoinder on 03.12.2020 with regard to typographical error. Hence, he prayed for specific performance of contract of sale.

6. Written statement was filed by the defendant stating, inter-alia, that the signatures of the defendant are forged, there is no consideration for the said agreement of sale, the defendant did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff or any third party and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.

7. In the said suit, plaintiff filed IA No. 517 of 2020, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant and her men from alienating the petition schedule property to third parties.

8. Counter affidavit is filed to the said IA by the defendant denying the allegations made therein and reiterating the contents of the written statement. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the plaintiff failed to implead the person who is holding the registered development agreement-cum-GPA and that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the said ground. The agreement of sale is not sufficiently stamped and not registered under the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act, hence the same is not admissible in evidence. There is no proof with regard to actual payment of the alleged amount and any payment of more than Rs. 2,00,000/- has to be made either through cheque or demand draft or through RTGS or through Bank or electronic transfer only, but there is no proof of such payment and prayed to dismiss the IA.

9. The trial Court, after discussing the principles for grant of temporary injunction, allowed the said IA granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. At Para 12 of the order, the trial Court observed as follows:

“The petitioner from the recitals in Ex.P1, averments in the plaint and legal notice has made out a prima facie case in his favour. The respondent is contending that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Simply saying that there is no prima facie case is not sufficient but