THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.111 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the record.

2. The appellant herein is defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff vide O.S.No.5 of 2024 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

3. The respondent herein had filed an Interlocutory Application in the aforesaid suit under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for grant of relief of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner herein from alienating the 4. The case of the respondent as set out in the suit is that the appellant herein had entered into an agreement of sale dated 10-12-2023 to sell her property for the consideration mentioned therein, pursuant to which the respondent herein made payment of first installment of Rs.15,00,000/- on 29-12-2023.

5. The case of the respondent before the trial Court is that though, he was ready to make the second installment/balance sale consideration of Rs.65,00,000/- as due performance in terms of the agreement, the appellant did not turn up to show the original title deed of the suit schedule property, upon which, the respondent herein got a legal notice dated 13-02-2024 issued calling upon the appellant herein to come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and also execute registered sale deed.

6. It is the further case of the respondent herein before the trial Court that since, the appellant did not come forward to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale and is seeking to alienate the property, he had filed the underlying Interlocutory Application restraining the respondent from alienating the suit 7. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, it is contended that the agreement of sale entered into itself provides that in the event of the respondent/plaintiff failing to make the payment on the due dates, the agreement of sale stands annulled, and thus, the trial Court without appreciating the aforesaid fact, granted injunction in favour of the respondent.

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

9. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the respondent herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated

10-12-2023.

10. The trial Court, by taking into consideration the documents marked on behalf of respondent herein as petitioner/plaintiff, found case in favour of the respondent/petitioner and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from The said order of the trial Court, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be said either suffering from error or perversity since, if the appellant is allowed to deal with the property pending adjudication of the suit, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale would stand defeated.

11. For the said reason, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court does not call for any interference and it is sustained.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J _________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J Date: 23-04-2025 Vsv