IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.459 of 2006 Between: M/s.Godavari Townships (P) Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, rep. by its Managing Director Sri Vummineni Siva Nageswara Rao ... APPELLANT A N D Pyda Venkata Rao and others ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: On 04-07-2006 this Court made the following order: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for contesting respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the prima facie case and balance of convenience and the pendency of suit, there shall be interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.” 2. The un-successful petitioner as plaintiff being aggrieved of the order in I.A.No.27 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Code’ for the purpose of convenience). 3. The learned counsel for the appellant had taken notice through the grounds 2 to 17 of memorandum of grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and would maintain that in the light of the same, even if the reasons recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram to be taken into consideration the order being unsustainable. The interim injunction granted by this Court to be continued with a direction to dispose of the main suit itself. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondents would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded at paragraph No.5 it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 5. Heard the learned counsel on record. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances explained, the following points that arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 7. POINT No.1:- The appellant herein filed I.A.No.27 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code praying for the relief of temporary injunction. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent No.1 is the owner of the land to an extent of 4.89½ cents shown in the schedule. Even according to the sale agreement the sum of Rs.1,35,000/- per acre and executed an agreement on 2-4-2004 which is also impounded by the RDO, Vizianagaram. On the date of execution of the agreement the respondents received Rs.50,000/- by way of a cheque payable at Andhra Bank and agreed to receive a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- payable by the plaintiff to R-1 during the first week of June 2004 and the balance of sale consideration is able within 12 months from the date of agreement before 2-4-2005. Accordingly the petitioner paid Rs.250000/- under a cheque dated 10-6-2004 to D- 1. D-1 received the same and in all he received Rs.4,00,000/- and only a sum of Rs.2,61,500/- is due to the D-1. The petitioner purchased the said land for the purpose of developing and letting out the plots and got them approved by the VUDA and do all things necessary on land for developing it. The petitioner is ready to pay the balance of sale consideration at any point of time and willing to obtain the registered sale deed. But the defendants have been postponing the same. To the surprise of the petitioner he learnt that the defendant executed a registered sale deed dated 19-10- 2005 in favour of D-2 to D-4 for a consideration of Rs.2,95,000/-. D-2 to D-4 are close friends of D-1. It is only a nominal and collusive documents. Now the respondents are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the schedule property, which was taken by him under the agreement of sale. 8. R-2 filed a counter which was adopted by R-3 and R-4, wherein specific stand had been taken that the possession was never taken by the plaintiff and as per the registered sale deed dated 19-10-2005, it was executed for a valuable consideration and delivery of possession also had been effected and thus, these defendants are the absolute owners of the property. 9. On behalf of the appellant – petitioner Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no documents had been marked. However, the learned Judge having taken into consideration the registration extract of the sale deed marked as Ex.A-5, recorded certain findings and ultimately came to the conclusion that it is not a fit matter where the temporary injunction to be granted and ultimately dismissed the application. 10. This is a suit for specific performance and no doubt the contesting defendants are relying on a registered sale deed. Be that as it may, this Court made an interim order on 04-07-2006. Inasmuch as, it is stated that the suit being of the year 2006, the suit itself may be disposed of. This Court is inclined to dispose of the same directing the parties to maintain status quo existing as on today till the disposal of the suit. 11. Let the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram dispose of the suit itself in O.S.No.3 of 2006 at an early date preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. POINT No.1:- In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J June 17, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.459 of 2006 June 17, 2010