THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.452 of 2025 Mr.D.Y.N.L.N. Charyulu, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr.G.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order dated 12.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.107 of 2024 in O.S.No.1 of 2024 by the Principal District Judge, Suryapet (‘Trial Court’) whereby the Trial Court dismissed the I.A. filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from executing the registered documents in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of any third party pending disposal of the Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Suit (O.S.No.1 of 2024) before the Trial Court for directing the respondent/defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant or his nominees in respect of the suit schedule property and for delivering the possession of the suit schedule property by handing over the original Title Deed issued by the Tahsildar, Jajireddygudem Mandal.

3. It is undisputed that the Agreement of Sale dated 21.12.2023 which was to be registered in favour of the appellant contemplated the payment of an advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs and the payment of the

4. The appellant filed the Suit and the I.A. on the basis that the respondent had been negotiating with third parties for the transfer of the suit schedule property contrary to the Agreement of Sale dated

21.12.2023 entered into by the appellant and the respondent.

5. The Trial Court found that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction pending hearing of the Suit. The operative portion of the impugned order states that the appellant was unable to furnish any evidence of his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.58 lakhs.

6. Although counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration to the respondent, we find that no such evidence was furnished by the appellant before the Trial Court. In any event, the Agreement of Sale dated 21.12.2023 makes it clear that the appellant was due to make the payment of the entire balance sale consideration of Rs.58 lakhs by 01.05.2024. Hence, even on the date of the impugned order i.e., 12.11.2025 which is more than 18 months from the due date of the payment, the appellant was unable to show proof that the appellant hence do not find any ground for interference in the reasoning given by the Trial Court for refusing the interim relief.

7. CMA.No.452 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

8. We however grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Trial Court with an appropriate application to show his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and pray for any interim relief, if so advised.

There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

26^th November, 2025.

BMS