* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

+ C.M.A. NO: 480/2022 % Dated: 02.01.2025

# Sheik Dada Miah and 4 others …… Appellants

and

$ Sri S.Ziyaur Rahiman and another ….. Respondents

! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gowda

^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Narsireddy

< GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1. AIR 2011 SC 3234 2. (1996) 4 SCC 526

3. 2022(2)ALD 357 4. (2010) SCC 689

5. (2010) 1 SCC 689 6. (1992) 1 SCC 719

7. 990SUPP(1)SCC727

8. 1993(3) SCC 161

9. 2022 SCC OnLine AP 135:AIR 2022 AP 59

10. (2012(4) SCC 689) 11. (2010(2) SCC 142)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A. NO: 480/2022 Between:

Sheik Dada Miah and 4 others …… Appellants and Sri S.ZiyaurRahiman and another ….. Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 02.01.2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals.

3. Whether Their Lordship wishes Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ____________________

N.VIJAY, J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.NO: 480/2022 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gowda, learned counsel representing Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.Narsireddy, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal under Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the C.P.C’) has been filed by the appellants/defendants, challenging the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in O.S.No.70 of 2021 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, in I.A.No.154 of 2021, granting temporary injunction.

3. The respondents filed O.S.No.70 of 2021 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.12.2018 as also for permanent injunction. They filed I.A. for grant of temporary injunction.

4. There was another suit, in O.S.No.63 of 1999 with respect to the subject matter of the agreement of sale pending in the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, for partition between the parties thereto which included the defendant of O.S.No.70 of 2021.

5. As per the plaintiffs’ case, the defendants are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.371/3D of Kallur Village and they entered into an agreement for Rs.1,42,50,000/- by executing agreement of sale dated 24.12.2018. They received earnest money of Rs.35,60,000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.15,60,000/- was received in cash and Rs.20,00,000/- was received by transfer. The plaintiffs had to pay the balance of Rs.1,06,90,000/- by 23.06.2019 after receiving the final decree copy, as the final decree proceeding pertaining to the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.63 of 1999, was pending. Both the parties agreed for the forfeiture of earnest money and for cancellation of the agreement, in the event of not paying the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time. There was also a condition to supply final decree copy to the plaintiffs by the defendants by 23.06.2019. In the event of not supplying the final decree copy, the defendants were liable to return the earnest money by cancelling the agreement. The plaintiffs submitted that the said condition was incorporated to conclude the sale at the earliest time and was not to be misused. They approached the defendants for supply of final decree copy before the scheduled date and even thereafter, the defendants postponed the process and finally they failed to produce the copy of the final decree, by taking shelter under Covid-19 pandemic situation. The plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. However, the defendants sent notice dated 16.08.2021