Point of law: Whenever a Court considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side. It must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed.

ORDER :

T. Amarnath Goud, J.

1. The petitioner assails the order dated 10.12.2020 passed in I.A. No. 2158 of 2020 in O.S. No. 832 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy whereunder the trial Court directed both parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the I.A.

2. The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, in nutshell, are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the above said suit against the petitioner, for perpetual injunction, stating that both petitioner and the respondent are companies and are having acquaintance with each other and were in transaction. Upon an oral agreement between both parties in the month of October 2020, the petitioner has agreed to sell a total extent of Ac. 20-25 guntas in Sy. Nos. 379, 382, 383 and 307 situated at Nandikandi village & Grampanchayat, Sadasivpet Mandal, Sanga Reddy District to the respondent for a total sum of Rs. 18,23,40,000/-. The petitioner under different installments paid a sum of Rs. 2,90,00,000/- to the respondent. The respondent was put in possession of the property and was allowed to perform pooja on 25.11.2020 and to carry out works in the suit schedule property. The allegation was that on 05.12.2020 the petitioner sent some antisocial elements to the property and asked the respondent not to do further work and threatened the respondent with dire consequences if proceed further. It was further alleged that on 11.11.2020 the petitioner sent a message to the respondent saying that the partners of the petitioner company are objecting and that they have not received advance as per schedule committed and that the deal cancelled. It is the further case of the respondent that even after the said communication dated 11.11.2020, the respondent paid further sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs through RTGS after deliberations and upon the advice of the petitioner. While the petitioner is still interfering with the suit schedule property, the respondent filed I.A. No. 2158 of 2020 seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the main suit restraining the petitioner and his men from interfering with the suit schedule property.

3. The trial Court, having heard the learned counsel for the respondent, by order dated 10.12.2020 directed both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property, which order is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant found fault with the impugned order since the same was an ex parte order and was not restricted for limited period. The learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio laid down in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund V. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 and Shiv Kumar Chadha V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161 in support of his contentions.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the petitioner having received part consideration of Rs. 2,90,00,000/- and put the respondent in possession of the suit schedule property, cannot now turn around and cancel the agreement to which action he has no manner of right. The petitioner ought to have contested the matter before the trial Court by filing a counter and vacate stay petitions. Instead, he approached this Court straight away under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the remedy before the trial Court.

6. Now the point for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the trial Court is justified in ordering status quo without restricting for a limited period.

7. It is apparent from the record that the payments have been made by the respondent to the petitioner through RTGS and that receipt of said payments was not denied by the petitioner. Even the oral agreement was also not denied by the petitioner, except pointing out the laches on the part of the respondent that on which date the respondent was put in possession of the property. It is to be not