THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 425 of 2007 Judgment: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order, dated 01.05.2007, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam, allowing I.A.No.1103 of 2007 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the petition schedule property pending disposal of the suit. 2. Appellant is the defendant and respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.15 of 2007 filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 23.09.2006, executed by the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. As the defendant is evading to perform his part of the contract and trying to alienate the petition schedule property, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1103 of 2007 for temporary injunction. By the order impugned, the Court below having held that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs, allowed the said I.A. restraining the defendant from alienating the petition schedule property to any other person other than the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit and till further orders, whichever is earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The record discloses that the appellant/defendant had executed an agreement of sale on 23.09.2006 in favour of the respondents agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and the respondents paid a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to him towards part consideration of the agreement. Thereafter, the appellant failed to perform his part of the contract by receiving the balance sale consideration. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, non-performance of the contract by the appellant will lead to irreparable loss to the respondents. In the order impugned, the trial Court after considering the material on record allowed the I.A. holding that if the appellant alienates the suit schedule property, the respondents would suffer irreparable loss and that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the respondents. From a perusal of the order impugned, it shows that the trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons. Since the suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case, at this stage. However, the matter is seized up before the trial Court. 5. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:20.09.2010. SJ