IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD * * *

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.108 of 2026

25^th March, 2026 Between:

Mr.S.J.S.N.Kishore …..Appellant AND Mr.Nenavath Balya & 5 Others …..Respondents JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Jduge, Nagarkurnool (‘Trial Court’) in I.A.No.261 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2024, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the I.A. filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants therein from alienating the suit schedule proper0ty to the third parties till disposal of the main Suit.

2. The appellant before this Court is the plaintiff before the Trial Court who filed a Suit against the respondents/defendants for specific performance and for a direction to the respondents to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the appellants by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,34,95,000/- or in the alternative to prayed the Trial Court to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the appellant. The appellant filed an interlocutory application (‘I.A.’) in the Suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property. The said I.A. was dismissed by the Trial Court by way of the impugned order.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

4. Paragraph 9 of the impugned order contains clear reasons for dismissal of the appellant’s I.A. First, the Trial Court found that the appellant, even according to his own submissions had paid an earnest amount of only Rs.12,00,000/- which is below 10% of the agreed total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,46,95,500/- and an amount of Rs.1,34,95,000/- was still outstanding from the appellant towards balance sale consideration. Second, the Trial Court also found that the appellant had failed to adduce any evidence or furnish any details to show that the respondents/defendants are negotiating with third parties with regard to suit schedule property or corroborative pleadings that there is apprehension of the respondents alienating the suit schedule property. The Trial Court also found that the respondents had disputed the genuiness of the Agreement of Sale on the basis of the extent of the land and boundaries thereof and had also contended that the Agreement of sale is a forged document. The Trial Court accordingly found that the appellant had failed to establish prima facie case in his favour and consequently the balance of convenience and irreparable injury was against the appellant/plaintiff.

5. We do not find any error in the impugned order. Counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to place any material before us to show that the Trial Court erred in coming to an erroneous the finding in respect of the material being placed before the Trial Court.

6. We accordingly do not find any merit in the Appeal. C.M.A.No.108 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

25th March, 2026.

BMS