THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.633 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order passed in I.A.No.229 of 2018 in O.S.No.330 of 2018, dated 11.12.2018 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District L.B.Nagar.

2. Appellants are the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the respondent is the petitioner – plaintiff in I.A.No.229 of 2018 in O.S.No.330 of 2018.

3. Respondent - petitioner – plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.330 of 2018 against the appellants – respondents – defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.03.2015 in respect of agricultural dry land in Survey No.285, admeasuring Ac.1-33 gts, situated at Mangalapally Patelguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with specific boundaries. Along with the suit, respondent – petitioner – plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.229 of 2018 seeking ad-interim injunction in his favour restraining the appellants - respondents – defendants from alienating the petition schedule property to third parties till disposal of the main suit.

4. Appellants – respondents - defendants have filed their counter in I.A.No.229 of 2018 and prayed to dismiss the application filed thereon.

5. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2018 has allowed I.A.No.229 of 2018 in O.S.No.330 of 2018 filed by the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff granting temporary injunction in his favour restraining the appellants – respondents – defendants from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties till disposal of the main suit, which is impugned in the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of the learned Trial Court is vitiated by various irregularities and surmises, learned Trial Court ought to have seen that there is no agreement of sale entered by the appellants – respondents - defendants with the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff on 24.03.2015 and the respondent - petitioner – plaintiff has created the agreement of sale dated 24.03.2015. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the appellants – respondents - defendants are not in peaceful possession of the entire property and they are in possession of the part of the property only, the appellants have narrated all the facts to their counsel on record but counsel could not brought to the notice of the Court about the memorandum of understanding dated 24.03.2015 for clearance of the dispute and handing over of the encroached area by the neighbouring land owners and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

7. Notice to the respondent is served and he failed to appear before the Court.

8.1 It is the contention of the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff in the plaint that the appellants - respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the owners and pattedars of the plaint schedule property, as they are in need of funds offered to sell an extent of Ac.1- 08 gts of land by appellant No.1 - respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 and an extent of Ac.0-25 gts by the appellant Nos.2 and 3 - respondent Nos.2 and 3 – defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and entered into an agreement of sale on 24.03.2015. The property is valued at Rs.70,00,000/- and the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff has paid Rs.10,00,000/- though cheque No.165780, dated 24.03.2015 and has paid Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque No.206245, dated 10.04.2015.

8.2 It is further stated in the plaint that respondent – petitioner – plaintiff has got issued legal notice dated 07.03.2018 calling the appellants herein – respondents – defendants to come forward to receive balance of sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed in favour of the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff.

9. Ex.A1 – agreement of sale dated 24.03.2005, Ex.A2 – Office copy of legal notice dated 07.03.2018 got issued by the respondent -

petitioner, Ex.A3 - postal receipts, Ex.A4 reply notice dated 12.03.2018 got issued by