Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 766
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, P.SREE SUDHA, JJ.
S. Sathish Rao - Appellant
Versus
SRSA Infrastructure Private Limited And Others – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.61 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : GADDAM KIRAN KUMAR
For the Respondent: S V RAMANA
Injunction orders can only be set aside if a genuine change in circumstances is established, not merely by reasserting previously presented claims.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Sections Order VII Rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rule 4 - Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale - Plaintiff sought specific performance regarding ten flats under an agreement with the defendants, who received advance payment but failed to execute the sale deed. The Court held that injunction against alienation was justified. Respondent's subsequent application was deemed improper as it did not present change in circumstances or hardship. (Paras 2-34)
(B) Change in circumstances - To discharge an injunction, evidence must establish genuine change not previously considered. Mere subsequent documents reinforcing past claims cannot constitute valid grounds for revisiting earlier orders (Para 29).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed for specific performance of a sale agreement for property, asserting the defendant's breach by selling part of the property to third parties post-agreement while failing to execute the sale deed for the remainder. The appeal followed a trial court’s interim injunction that the defendant sought to overturn citing new forensic evidence (Paras 3-6).
Findings of Court:
The trial Court's order in I.A. No. 365 of 2020 was deemed proper as there was no evidence of a change of circumstances sufficient to justify a discharge of the injunction (Para 34).
Issues: Whether there was proper basis for discharging an interim injunction given the circumstances presented by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the respondent's failure to establish genuine change in circumstances rendered the trial Court's order erroneous.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of specific performance claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments on submission of evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's reasoning on procedural adherence (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. findings on trial court's error (Para 34) |
| 5. final ruling and order on appeal (Para 35) |
JUDGMENT :
T.Vinod Kumar, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 02.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.816 of 2021 in O.S.No.58 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, at Sanga Reddy.
2. The Appellant herein is the plaintiff in the above suit filed for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 29.07.2019 under Order VII Rule 1 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (for short ‘CPC’), and respondent No.1 in the underlying Interlocutory Application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
3. It is the case of the appellant that, he had entered into an agreement of sale on 29.07.2019 with respondent No.1 in respect of sale of ten flatsin Sri Ayyappa Sai Ram Residency-4, situated at Kistareddypet village, Ameenpur Mandal at Sanagreddy District for total sale consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only); and that, the respondent No.1 received an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) by way of Cheque dated 29.07.2019 and Cash of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) as part advance sale consideration.
4. Appellant contends that, he approached the respondent No.1 on 10.01.2020 and demanded to produce all the documents and approvals for verification in order to get registration of subject property; and that the respondent No.1 had assured and promised to handover all the relevant documents and also agreed to register the subject property infavour of the appellant within one month. On the respondent No.1 delaying the execution of sale deed and due to lockdown, subsequently the appellant could not approach the respondent No.1 and after relaxation of the lockdown, on approaching the respondent No.1, it had denied to execute the registered sale deed.
5. Appellant further contends that, on enquiry he had learnt that, respondent No.1 intentionally avoided to execute the registered sale deed and by suppressing the existing agreement with him, had alienated part of the subject property to third parties, depriving the appellant of his right under agreement of sale.
6. It is contended by the appellant that, on the respondent No.1 denying to execute sale deed in his favour, he had obtained the Encumbrance Certificate on 04.08.2020 and shocked to notice that Flat No. 201 was sold infavour of respondentNos.4 and 5 vide registered Sale deed dated 20.03.2020 and Flat No. 205 was sold infavour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Registered Sale deed dated 26.02.2020, even though the said flats were part of the Agreement of sale entered into with the appellant. Thus, the respondent No.1 deliberately breached the conditions of agreement of sale which it was bound to comply by receiving the balance sale consideration.
7. Since, the respondent No.1 did not abide by the terms of agreement of sale, the appellant has filed the subject suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 29.07.2019 vide O.S. No. 58 of 2020 and along with the suit the appellant also filed application vide I.A. No. 365 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the subject property in favour of third parties. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and by considering the documents on record, has allowed the I.A. No. 365 of 2020 vide order dated 10.03.2021.
8. Aggrieved by the trial Court’s order in I.A. No. 365 of 2020, the respondent No.1 filed C.M.A. No.250 of 2021 before this Court praying to suspend the interim order dated 10.03.202.This Court by considering the submissions made vide order dated 13.06.2021 had dismissed the appeal filed by the re
