The importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting injunction and the discretion of the trial court in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions.

JUDGMENT

A.V. SESHA SAI, J. - Plaintiffs in O.S.No.102 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Guntur District are the appellants in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. This appeal calls in question the order, dtd. 21/12/2022, passed by the said Court in I.A.No.613 of 2022. Appellants herein instituted the said suit against the respondents for the following reliefs:

The linked image cannot be display ed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. V erify that the link points to the correct file and location.

a) To pass Decree directing the Defendants for Specific Performance of Agreement/understanding arrived on 16/08/2018, by directing them to retransfer the Plaint schedule land, Ac.29.49 cents, situate in Kaza village, Mangalagiri Mandal, PedaKakani Sub Registry, Guntur District, in favour of the Plaintiffs.

b) In case the Defendants failed to execute the document and to register the document/s, retransferring the Plaint schedule land, as prayed for, in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Hon'ble court may appoint an Officer of the court to execute such document/s, to retransfer the Plaint schedule land in favour of the Plaintiffs;

c) To pass Decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants for a sum of Rs.10.00 crores as liquidated damages;

d) Grant a Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to return to the Plaintiffs the blank Cheques and blank Promissory Notes referred to in para 7 of the Plaint

e) To grant costs of the suit; and

f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary and proper and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

3. In the said suit, plaintiffs-appellants herein filed the present I.A.No.613 of 2022 under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC, seeking ad-interim/temporary injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents herein from alienating the plaint schedule properties in favour of others pending disposal of the suit. Resisting the said application, defendants-respondents filed counter.

4. During the course of enquiry, plaintiffs-appellants herein, in order to substantiate their case, filed Exs.A1 to A28 and the defendants did not file any documents and no oral evidence was adduced by the parties.

5. The learned Additional District Judge, vide the order impugned in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, dismissed I.A.No.613 of 2022. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.

6. Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms.C.Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants herein, and Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents herein, apart from perusing the material available on record.

7. Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the order impugned is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; that the learned Judge grossly erred in not appreciating the material available on record in a proper perspective; that the bank transactions covered by Exs.A1 and A2-documents clearly go to show the nature of the said transactions and the existence of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants; that, in the event of allowing the present application, the multiplication of proceedings can be avoided; that the reliefs, as regards the nature of transactions, would also come out during the course of trial; that all the three ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are in favour of the appellants, as such, the learned Judge ought to have granted injunction as prayed for. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel, representing the appellants herein, places reliance on the following judgments:

1. 2