THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.NO.972 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This appeal is filed against the order dated 24.05.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in I.A.No.34 of 2011 in O.S.No.8 of 2011 granting interim injunction restraining the appellant- defendant from alienating the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant-defendant is the absolute owner of the schedule property and had entered into an agreement of sale on 14.10.2009 with the respondents-plaintiffs agreeing to sell the schedule property for total consideration of Rs.1,18,00,000/-and the respondents-plaintiffs paid Rs.10,00,000/- as part of sale consideration on the same day. As per the agreement of sale, time fixed for registration of regular sale deed expired on 13.4.2010. But at the request of the appellant- defendant, the time for registration was extended by two months viz., till 13.6.2010 and after expiry of the said period, the appellant- defendant did not come forward to perform his part of the contract and hence, the respondents-plaintiffs got issued a notice dated 2.1.2011 calling the appellant herein to comply with all the conditions of the agreement and to execute the sale deed on 7.3.2011. The appellant- defendant sent a reply on 17.2.2011 denying the allegations and stating that the time was the essence of the contract and the agreement got cancelled as the respondents-plaintiffs failed to fulfill their obligation and the advance amount paid by them was also forfeited. Hence, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the above suit. Along with the suit, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the impugned application seeking temporary injunction to restrain the appellant-defendant from alienating the schedule property during pendency of the suit. Taking into consideration the terms of the agreement of the sale, the Court below came to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the time is the essence of contract or not has to be adjudicated after fullfledged trial, but however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the temporary injunction can be granted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and granted interim injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from alienating the schedule properties during pendency of the suit. Hence, the present appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that there is no material or substance to grant relief and the trial Court while granting temporary injunction has failed to consider the principle of balance of convenience and irreparable loss that would be caused to the other party. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs contends that the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the appeal may be dismissed. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the agreement of sale, a suggestion was made to the Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that the respondents-plaintiffs shall deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,08,00,000/- in order to show their bonafides, for which, the learned Counsel agreed. In these circumstances, we feel it just and proper to modify the order of the Court below as follows: There shall be interim injunction restraining the appellant- defendant from alienating the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit subject to the condition of the respondents-plaintiffs depositing balance sale consideration of Rs.1,08,00,000/-within a period of four weeks from today. In default, the interim injunction shall stand vacated. On such deposit, the Court below shall dispose of the suit within a period of four months thereafter. With the above modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 19.9.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.NO.972 OF 2011 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 19.9.2011 Nn