THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 6303 OF 2009 DATED:19-11-2010. Between B.Veeraiah and another … Petitioner And 1.The Deputy Registrar, O.S.D. Karimnagar District co-operative Central Bank, Karimnagar and others …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 6303 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 11-11-2009 in C.M.A.No.20 of 2008, on the file of the District Judge, Karimnagar, in setting aside the order, dated 25-09-2007, in I.A.No.732 of 2007 in O.S.No.133 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction, was allowed. 2. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioners herein are the purchasers of property in respect of 0.24 guntas of land in Sy.No.1368/D situated at Choppadandi village. Initially, the trial Court granted injunction and the said order of granting injunction was set aside by the appellate Court. 3. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz., 1) if the plaintiff has made out a Prima facie case 2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and 3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. 4. With regard to possession, the petitioners are said to be in possession of the property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 29-01-2003. When an injunction petition was filed, the 1st respondent filed counter stating that the property in question was mortgaged to respondent No.5 vide registered mortgage deed bearing document No.332/99, dated 30-11-1999. That aspect of the case has not been challenged by the petitioners by filing rejoinder or filing additional pleadings. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory application, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the petitioners can safely be taken as correct. In the counter it is stated that the petitioners are having prior knowledge about the existence of prior mortgage of the suit land to the 5th respondent. He specifically informed the petitioner with regard to mortgaging the said property. Therefore, the petitioners are having prior knowledge about the mortgage. The petitioners have not stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC that they are the bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration and that they are not having knowledge about mortgaging the property in favour of bank. If really, they are the bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, they would have certainly obtained Encumbrance Certificate preceding 12 years from the date of registration i.e., on 29-01-2003. No explanation was given for not obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate preceding 12 years. Even according to them, they are not the bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration. When the vendors of the petitioners have categorically stated that the petitioners having knowledge about the earlier mortgage and still they have purchased the property means, they have to incur the risk of purchasing the property. For obvious reasons, they said to have purchased the property. In view of the fact that the averments in the counter filed by the vendor of the petitioners have not been controverted, the same can be accepted at this stage for the purpose of deciding the issue involved. Therefore, the petitioners fail to establish prima facie title, which is sine quo non for grant of injunction. Similarly, they are said to be in possession of the property only by virtue of document said to have been executed in which the vendors have no right, title or interest as the land in question was already under mortgage with the bank. In view of the fact that the property was already under registered mortgage, the petitioners are knowing full well about the mortgage purchased the property. 5. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that mortgage deed has not been filed by the bank in the trial Court. That is not necessary for disposal of the interlocutory application in view of the fact that the vendor of the petitioners has specifically stated the document number, date on which mortgage was created and the amount of loan taken by him. That aspect of the case has not been controverted by the petitioners. No irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction is not granted because the remedy of petitioners if any can be to proceed against the vendors for damages. They can always at liberty to claim damages against the vendors because the property under purchase was already mortgaged to the bank. 6. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property was not noted as one of the items to be sold in the sale notice. That cannot be a ground for petitioners to seek the relief of injunction. It is for the mortgagee to seek the court to conduct auction in respect of any of the properties or some of the properties mortgaged. So on that ground, the petitioners are not entitled for injunction. That is the reason why, the appellate Court rightly set aside the order of the trial Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment under challenge. 7. Since suit is of the year 2007, the trial Court shall dispose of the same preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to other part heard and old cases. Both are parties are directed to co-operate with the Court for disposal of the suit. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that they are going to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. This order will not preclude the respondents in filing such an application. If such an application is filed, the same shall have to be disposed of in accordance with law. 9. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:19.11.2010 Hsd