0THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.101 of 2008, 103 of 2008 and 153 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) All the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are interconnected and the parties are one and the same, and therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the order dated 29.11.2007 passed in I.A.Nos.3067 of 2006, 3068 of 2006 in O.S.No.51 of 2006 and 52 of 2006 and the order dated 29.01.2008 in I.A.No.3067 of 2008 in O.S.No.51 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. The appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suits O.S.Nos.51 of 2006 and 52 of 2006 against the respondents/defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale directing them to execute registered sale deeds pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 11.8.2006 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.40/B admeasuring Ac.4.01 ½ guntas situated at Toopranpet village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, by receiving the balance sale consideration. Pending suit the appellant filed I.A.No.3067 of 2006 in O.S.No.51 of 2006 and I.A.No.3068 of 2006 in O.S.No.52 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants therein from alienating the suit schedule property. The said I.A. was disposed of by the Court below on 29.11.2007 directing the petitioner to deposit the balance of sale consideration into the Court within a fortnight. The appellant filed I.A.No.3067 of 2006 in O.S.No.51 of 2006 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third parties till the disposal of the main suit. The said I.A. was dismissed on 29.01.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.101, 103 and 153 of 2008 are filed. The respondents-defendants filed counters resisting the claim of the appellant-plaintiff and submitting that the appellant himself approached them for the purpose of purchase of some land in suit survey number and the respondent agreed to sell an extent of Ac.4.00 Gts. only for the price offered by the petitioner and thereupon, the appellant obtained signatures of the respondent and his brother in an agreement of sale after paying Rs.2,75,000/- towards earnest money. It is the specific plea of the respondent/defendant that they signed on some blank stamp papers and the appellant fabricated the suit documents to knock away the entire suit schedule property of Ac.8.03 gts. The Court below, after taking into consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, and on scrutiny of the material available on record, through the impugned orders, granted temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of the third parties, pending suits, with a further direction to the appellant to deposit the balance sale consideration into the Court within a fortnight. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant already produced sufficient evidence to show that he is having sanction of sufficient credit facility in HDFC to pay the balance sale consideration through Ex.A.9 to Ex.A.12 and therefore imposing the condition to deposit the balance sale consideration for granting discretionary relief of injunction, not to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of the 3rd party by the respondent, is erroneous and more particularly in view of the fact that the appellant is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the respondent failed to perform his part of contract. He further contends that the Court below has committed a serious error in imposing onerous conditions of depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.58,00,000/- (fifty eight lakhs) within 15 days. He submits that the Court has to be specific with regard to the balance of convenience and imposition of such onerous condition is impermissible under law. Non-compliance thereof resulting in the dismissal of the order dated 29.01.2008 in I.A.No.3067 of 2008 in O.S.No.51 of 2006, that information is the subject matter of the C.MA.No.153 of 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the condition which is imposed to fulfil has been made by the trial Court and the Court below ought to have considered the prima facie nature of case and balance of convenience instead of imposing the onerous conditions, to which, the appellant cannot be made liable. In the circumstances, both the C.M.A.s are allowed. The order passed by the trial Court imposing conditions are in our considered view is onerous so as to make them impossible to fulfil these conditions. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J 5th October, 2010. PNV