THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A.No.332 of 2010 Judgment: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order, dated 08.04.2010, passed in I.A.No.415 of 2010 in O.S.No.16 of 2010 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. 2. The appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff jointly purchased Acs.15-16 gts of land from its original owners under different registered sale deeds in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and they jointly established Venkat Sai Stone Crushing Company in the said land by investing the amounts equally. The appellant obtained necessary permissions on his name and the respondent used to manage the affairs of the company. While so, as the appellant intends to sell away his share to the respondent, both of them settled the value of the company including land, machinery, vehicles and infrastructure etc., at Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Thereafter, they entered into an agreement of sale, dated 12.12.2009, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.37,50,000/-by way of adjustments to him and on payment of balance sale consideration on or before 07.02.2010, the appellant would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent. The appellant acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. In the agreement, it was also mentioned that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 04.06.2010 in respect of Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.525/E to one Nallabolu Linga Reddy whenever the appellant executes the sale deed. The respondent states that though he is willing to perform his part of the contract by keeping the balance sale consideration in his account since 06.02.2010, the appellant has not executed the sale deed in his favour, but trying to create some documents on the names of his kith and kin. Whereas the appellant states that the said company is totally belongs to him and all licenses, necessary permissions and the certificates from the Government were obtained by him in his name and he is paying electricity charges etc., and that due to some pressure from the anti social elements and also from the political parties, he executed the said agreement and therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in granting injunction in favour of the respondent as the suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale. He further submitted that the amount of Rs.37,50,000/-paid by the respondent towards part payment was returned by the appellant by depositing a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-on 10.09.2010 in the account of the respondent, an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-was paid in the presence of the witnesses and the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is payable by the respondent to him towards metal transaction(xerox copies of those receipts are produced). He further submitted that that the property in question is in the name of the appellant as per Ex.A5-pattadar passbook and all the licenses and necessary permissions to run the company were obtained by him and that nowhere it is stated in the agreement of sale that possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the respondent. He also submitted that that if the respondent violates the terms and conditions of the licences and the permissions in view of the order of injunction, the appellant is responsible for the same and therefore, he seeks to set aside the order of injunction granted by the Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent disputed those receipts and contended that there was a specific mention in the agreement that the appellant will not be responsible for any loans and pending litigations from the date of the said agreement and thus, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. There is no dispute as regards the execution of agreement of sale, dated 12.12.2009, by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and part payment of an amount of Rs.37,50,000/- by the respondent. As per the material on record, Ex.A5-pattadar passbook stands in the name of the appellant. As per Exs.B1 to 22, the appellant obtained licenses and necessary permissions to run the company. It is also not in dispute that the parties are joint partners of the said company and the possession was not delivered to the respondent/plaintiff as per the agreement of sale and that the suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The fact that returning of an amount of Rs.37,50,000/-by the appellant to the respondent is correct or not, can be decided by the trial Court only after full fledged trial. Since the appellant obtained licences and necessary permissions from the authorities concerned to run the company, if any terms and conditions thereof are violated in view of the injunction granted in favour of the respondent, it will cause irreparable loss to the appellant, as he is a partner of the company. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of injunction passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent/plaintiff is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order impugned. However, the respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to carry on the operations of the company as per the agreement of sale, dated 12.12.2009. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:27.10.2010. SJ