ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. A. Sudersan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Shyam S. Agrawal for respondents 1 to 6.

2. This Revision is preferred against the order dated 08.06.2020 in I.A. No. 429 of 2020 in O.S. No. 40 of 2020 of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is the 3rd defendant in the said suit.

The plea in the suit

4. The said suit was filed by respondents 1 to 6/plaintiffs against the petitioner/defendant No. 3 and respondents 7 and 8/defendant No. 1 and 2 for specific performance of the Agreement of sale dated 20.12.2007 executed in favour of respondents 1 to 6 by respondents 7 and 8, alternatively for refund of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the said Agreement till the date of making payment; to declare the sale deed dated 01.12.2016 executed by respondents 7 and 8 in favour of the petitioner as null and void and not binding on them and to cancel it and for a perpetual injunction restraining respondents 7 and 8 and the petitioner from transferring, alienating, mortgaging or creating any third party interest or charge or changing nature of the suit schedule property.

5. The suit schedule property is premises bearing Municipal No. 8-2-293/82/G/C admeasuring 2,238 square yards in T.S. No. 2, Block-A, Ward No. 9 of Shaikpet Village situated at Road No. 34, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

The plea of the respondents 1-6 in the plaint

6. It is the case of respondents 1 to 6/plaintiffs that respondents 7 and 8 had approached them in 2007 stating that they are owners of the plaint schedule property which had been allotted to them by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms. No. 678 dated 17.10.2001 in view of the acquisition of their property in another part of the city, that possession was delivered to them on 10.09.2004, that they obtained permission from the then Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and raised a compound wall and also constructed a room in the said property.

7. Respondents 1 to 6 contended that respondents 7 and 8 had stated that they also obtained clearance from the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on 14.07.2005, that the suit schedule property was within ceiling limits, and they also obtained ‘no objection certificate’ from the Collector on 18.02.2005 that the State Government had no claim over the property.

8. Respondents 1 to 6 urged that respondents 7 and 8 offered to sell this property to respondents 1 to 6 for Rs. 10.50 Crores, that a Sale Agreement dated 20.12.2007 was executed between respondents 1 to 6 and respondents 7 and 8 and respondents 1 to 6 also paid Rs. 1 crore to respondents 7 and 8. They contended that the balance consideration was to be paid by respondents 1 to 6 to respondents 7 and 8 within two months.

9. Respondents 1 to 6 then stated that a civil suit O.S. No. 191 of 2005 was pending before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against respondents 7 and 8 regarding the suit schedule property; that they also came to know that respondents 7 and 8 informed about the claim by one Smt. A. Indira who had filed W.P. No. 17498 of 2005 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh; that these two cases were pending; and respondents 1 to 6 agreed that parties will proceed to complete the sale transaction under the Agreement of sale dated 20.12.2007 irrespective of the pendency of these cases. They contended that subsequently it came to light that the sale was prohibited on account of certain orders of the Court and it was agreed that both respondents 1 to 6 and respondents 7 and 8 would wait till disposal of the cases.

10. They stated that suit O.S. No. 191 of 2005 was dismissed on 16.12.2008 and Appeal A.S. No. 81 of 2009 against the judgment therein was also dismissed on 23.06.2011 by the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Co