THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.700 of 2009 Dated:05.11.2009 Between: M/s.Om Metals Developers Pvt., Ltd. ….Appellant And Ms.Sunita Prasad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.700 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the order dated 01.12.2008 in I.A.No.1631 of 2008 in O.S.No.491 of 2008. By the said order the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, rejected and dismissed the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to restrain respondent No.12 herein from changing the nature of the suit schedule land including developmental activities. This Court by an order dated 03.07.2009 granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining respondent No.12 from changing the nature of land including developmental activities over the petition schedule land. Respondent No.12 has come forward with an application, being C.M.A.M.P.No.1944 of 2009, for vacating the ad interim injunction order. As the submissions of both the parties for the purpose of interlocutory applications as well as the main appeal are same, arguments are heard, and the matter is being disposed of finally. In this appeal the parties are referred to by their status in the suit. Be it also noted, the appellant did not seek any relief against respondent Nos.1 to 11 herein, and in this Court also no relief is prayed against them. Nonetheless, respondent Nos.1 to 11 are represented by a Counsel, who did not move separate application for vacating the interim injunction. The dispute between two real estate companies is in relation to the land admeasuring Acs.6.23 guntas in Survey No.78/B, Hafizpet Village of Serilingampalli Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (hereafter called, petition schedule land). The petition schedule land forms part of the total extent of Acs.40.00 in survey No.78/B statedly owned jointly by respondent Nos.1 to 11. The case of the plaintiff (appellant herein) before the lower Court is that they entered into an agreement of sale with defendant Nos.1 to 11 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.20.00, that after receiving full sale consideration for Acs.10.00 the owners executed a registered sale deed dated 12.02.2008, that in April 2008 they also paid the entire sale consideration for the balance of land agreed to be sold under agreement of sale dated 07.08.2006 and that when they were taking necessary steps for getting the sale deed executed by the owners, defendant Nos.1 to 11 executed sale deed dated 16.02.2008 in favour of defendant No.12. The plaintiff, therefore, got issued notice dated 01.05.2008 demanding the vendors to execute the sale deed for land admeasuring Acs.10.00, in vain, and filed the suit on 22.05.2008 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.08.2006 insofar as balance land of Acs.10.00 is concerned. They also alleged that defendant No.12 is proceeding to develop the petition schedule land by changing the land use and that defendant No.12 being a subsequent purchaser under registered sale deed dated 16.02.2008 is not entitled to any benefits out of the said transaction. As noticed supra, defendant Nos.1 to 11 did not file any counter affidavit before the lower Court opposing I.A.No.1631 of 2008. Defendant No.12 filed a counter affidavit opposing ad interim injunction. The case of defendant No.12 is that they entered into an agreement of sale on 04.08.2006 with defendant Nos.1 to 11 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.20.00 in survey No.78/B of Hafizpet Village, that when the sale deed was not executed, defendant No.12 filed O.S.No.1177 of 2007 for specific performance of agreement of sale, that the matter was settled as compromised before the Lok Adalat on 30.06.2008, and that in pursuance thereof defendant Nos.1 to 11 executed the registered sale deed on 16.02.2008. The agreement and sale deed for Acs.10.00 were marked as Exs.P.1 and P.12 respectively. The receipt for an amount of Rs.18 crores paid by the plaintiff towards sale consideration of the balance extent of Acs.10.00 was marked as Ex.P.19. The letters addressed by the plaintiff to authorities seeking permission for land use and layout approval were also exhibited before the lower Court. On considering this documentary evidence the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience. The trial Court also observed that there was no evidence to corroborate the case of the plaintiff that they paid the entire consideration for balance of land under Ex.P.1. Therefore, by impugned order the application was dismissed. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and learned Counsel for defendant No.12 have taken this Court through the documentary evidence and other documents available on record. They made their submissions reiterating their respective positions as was canvassed before the lower Court. The admitted facts are defendant Nos.1 to 11 are owners of the land in survey No.78/B of Hafizpet. They executed Ex.P.12 – sale deed dated 12.02.2008 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Acs.10.00 of land. They also executed sale deed dated 16.02.2008 in favour of defendant No.12. What is not, however, admitted is whether Acs.6.23 guntas which is subject matter of Ex.P.13 forms part of the land agreed to be sold under Ex.P.1 in favour of the plaintiff. It is to be seen whether the land covered by Ex.P.13 sale deed in favour of defendant No.12 was subject matter of O.S.No.1177 of 2007 which was compromised and settled before Lok Adalat. This document was exhibited as Ex.B.2. A perusal of the same would show that the suit, being O.S.No.1177 of 2007 was filed by defendant No.12 against defendant Nos.1 to 11 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 04.08.2006 in respect of Acs.20.00 of land and not Acs.6.23 guntas. This would improbablise any contention that Ex.P.13 sale deed covering Acs.6.23 guntas was executed only in pursuance of order of Lok Adalat. Secondly, as seen from Ex.P.19 on 17.04.2008 the plaintiff paid a huge amount of Rs.18 crores which is full and final payment towards sale consideration for balance Acs.10.00 of land covered by agreement dated 07.08.2006. Hence, by reading Exs.P.1, P.12 and P.19 an inference can be drawn that the plaintiff entered into agreement with defendant Nos.1 to 11 for an extent of Acs.20.00 very much prior to Ex.P.13 sale deed in favour of defendant No.12. Therefore, we are convinced that plaintiff established prima facie case. In the counter affidavit filed in support of the application to vacate the interim order, being C.M.A.M.P.No.1944 of 2009 no allegations, much less, submissions are made with reference to the hardship that defendant No.12 might suffer if an injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, to see that nature of petition schedule property would not be changed, we are inclined to order status quo as on today. Indeed, the learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff while requesting for order of status quo for a period of three months sought a direction to the lower Court for expeditious disposal of the suit itself. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the nature, title and right in respect of land admeasuring Acs.6.23 guntas forming part of petition schedule property for a period of five months. We direct the lower Court to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and hope that the Counsel will cooperate with the lower Court for disposal of the suit. Needless to mention that any observations made hereinabove are intended for the purpose of this order and would not bind the Court below in disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 05.11.2009 vs