AND C.M.A. No.164 OF 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 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 defendant Nos.2 to 7 in the subject suit filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance.

4. The respondent No.1 herein along with the suit had filed petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC restraining the respondents/defendants in the suit not to alienate subject property.

5. The Court below by considering the submissions made and also taking note of the fact that the 6^th respondent except denying the material allegations, did not produce any document had granted order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff herein restraining the respondents/ defendants from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

6. The Court below further noted that the contentions of the appellant/defendant cannot be considered as the respondent/ plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.1,79,50,000/- towards part sale consideration.

7. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

8. Though it is contended that the respondent/plaintiff being aware of the pending litigation at the time of entering into agreement of sale and suppressing the said fact had filed the subject suit, which he is not entitled to maintain and is only entitled to seek refund of the amount paid, it is to be noted that whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to be granted with a decree of specific performance or not is to be considered after the Court below adjudicates the matter after trial. Pending trial, if the appellants are allowed to deal with the suit schedule property, creating third party interests, the suit claim not only gets defeated, but would also result in multiplicity of litigation.

9. In view of the above, the finding of fact recorded by the Court below cannot be said as either suffering from error or being perverse for this Court to interfere with the order granting injunction, more so when the appellant herein except claiming to have purchased the land in the year 1985 and also converting the suit land into plots has not placed any documents for the Court below to take note of the same.

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the said order does not suffer from any error or perversity for being interfered with.

11. Accordingly, the CMA fails and is dismissed. No costs.

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

T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 30.04.2025 P. SREE SUDHA, J

MRKR