AND C.M.A. No.184 OF 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 17.03.2025 in I.A. No.674 of 2024 in O.S. No.36 of

2024 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Warangal.

3. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the underlying application and defendant in suit filed by the 1st respondent herein as plaintiff seeking specific performance.

4. The respondent/plaintiff along with the suit had filed petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC praying the Court to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 7, their men and agents from creating any charge, mortgage and alienating the suit schedule property and to award costs of the petition.

5. The Court below by taking note of the fact that the respondent/plaintiff claims to have paid an amount of Rs.1,79,50,000/- towards part sale consideration had granted order of interim injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from alienating the suit schedule property.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, one of the respondents/defendants had approached this Court by filing the appeal vide CMA No.164 of 2025.

7. This Court by considering that the respondent herein claims to have made payment of Rs.1,79,50,000/- towards part sale consideration and the Court below having granted only temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit schedule property did not find any error or infirmity or perversity in the said order.

8. The appellant herein is the 1^st respondent in the underlying interlocutory application. Though on behalf of the appellant it is contended that the respondent herein had approached the Court below and obtained order of injunction by suppressing various facts and also the fact of he being aware of the pending litigation, the fact of the appellant herein having lost the said suit and having taken steps to assail the said order of dismissal of the suit by filing an appeal, it cannot be said that the respondent having failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour for the Court below to grant an injunction restraining the appellant and other respondents/defendants in the suit from alienating the property or the Court below having erred in granting the said order, for being disturbed by this Court in this appeal.

9. Accordingly, the CMA is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the CMA, shall stand closed.

T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 02.05.2025 P. SREE SUDHA, J

MRKR