THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 591 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 13.05.2011 passed in I.A. No. 367 of 2011 in O.S. No. 46 of 2011 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the above suit filed for specific performance of the letter of agreement dated 05.02.2011. It is the case of the appellants-plaintiffs that the respondent-defendant has agreed to sell the plaint schedule property of Ac.7.75 cents to them for a total consideration of Rs.1,24,00,000/- and received an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- from them towards advance sale consideration and fixed the date of registration as 05.05.2011 under the suit document. Pursuant thereto, the appellants-plaintiffs raised funds and secured balance sale consideration, but when they requested the respondent- defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed in their favour, the respondent-defendant did not come forward to perform its part of obligation and on enquiries, they came to know that the respondent-defendant has been making efforts to alienate the plaint schedule property to third parties for higher price, contrary to the terms of the suit document. The appellants-plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for specific performance along with the present I.A. for interim relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondent- defendant from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties till the disposal of the suit. The respondent-defendant firm represented by its Managing Partner M. Pavan Kumar Reddy resisted the petition of the appellants- plaintiffs. The case of the respondent-defendant is that the respondent firm is a partnership firm, and after the death of its Managing Partner namely Mannemala Chandrasekhar Reddy on 04.01.2011, the partnership firm turned defunct and is yet to be revived by inducting the legal heirs/successors of the deceased Managing Partner into the partnership business, that after the sudden demise of the Managing Partner of the firm, the remaining partners of the firm have decided to dispose of the properties of the firm for reasonable market value, that the appellants-plaintiffs have agreed to purchase Acs. 7.75 cents of land standing in the name of the firm, at the rate of Rs.1.20 crores per acre and they have agreed to enter into a formal agreement, after the firm is reconstituted. While so, the appellants-plaintiffs approached the partners through Mallikarjuna Reddy and Subbarami Reddy and expressed their desire to initiate the process of development of the plaint schedule property by conversion of the land and to continue the further developmental process. Mr. Mallikarjuna Reddy was accepted as sole arbitrator and in his presence, the appellants-plaintiff have paid Rs.26,00,000/- to Mr. Pavan Kumar Reddy, so as to enable the partners to meet the costs of conversion of the land. Acknowledging the receipt of the said amount of Rs.26,00,000/-, Mr. Pavan Kumar Reddy has issued the receipt dated 05.02.2011 on the letterhead of the firm and no date of registration or survey numbers of the property or total sale consideration were mentioned in the said letter. The appellants-plaintiffs have fabricated the said letter, by adding some lines indicating the survey numbers, the total sale consideration and the date of registration. The total sale consideration was never agreed to be Rs.1,24,00,000/- and in fact the value of the land is Rs.1,20,00,000/- per acre. When the appellants-plaintiffs started collecting advances from the prospective buyers even before obtaining formal agreement of sale, the arbitrator Mallikarjuna Reddy called them and admonished them and the respondent-defendant agreed to return the advance of Rs.26,00,000/- to them, but they did not contact the respondent and even without issuing any notice, they have filed the present suit. Further, the appellants-plaintiffs have mentioned in the schedule of the suit, some of the survey numbers that were not referred to in the alleged fabricated letter of agreement, and have omitted to include some of the lands that were referred to in the letter. Even though the date of registration was alleged to be fixed as 05.05.2011, they filed the suit on 09.03.2011 itself even without issuing any notice. The appellants-plaintiffs did not approach the Court with clean hands and are not entitled to the relief prayed for. The respondent-defendant thus prayed for dismissal of the petition. The Court below, having considered the stand of the parties and the documents filed by them, held that whether Ex.A1- original letter of agreement dated 05.02.2011 is altered or not can be looked into at the stage of trial of the suit, that some of the survey numbers that were referred to in Ex.A1 are not mentioned in the plaint schedule and some of the survey numbers that were not referred to in Ex.A1 are mentioned in the plaint schedule and there is no explanation why such omissions and commissions took place in filing the plaint, that no reasons were assigned by the appellants-plaintiffs for not depositing the balance amount having come to Court much earlier to the date fixed in Ex.A1 letter of agreement and they did not come to Court with clean hands and are not entitled for the discretionary relief of temporary injunction. Having held so, the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, by the order under appeal. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the order under appeal. As can be seen from the rival contentions of the parties, though there is no dispute with regard to payment of Rs.26,00,000/- by the appellants-plaintiffs to the respondent-defendant towards advance consideration under the suit letter of agreement, there is a serious dispute as to the other contents of the suit letter of agreement. Whether the said letter was altered by the appellants-plaintiffs, as alleged by the respondent-defendant, by incorporating the survey numbers, date of registration and total sale consideration, is the question that can be decided only after full-fledged trial. Having regard to the dispute involved and the rival contentions raised by the parties, we deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, we dispose of the civil miscellaneous appeal, directing the Court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties till the disposal of the suit. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 12th September 2011 IBL