THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. Nos. 593 and 594 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per KSAR,J) These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 21.07.2008 passed in I.A. Nos. 347 and 348 of 2007 in O.S. No. 222 of 2007 by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, directing the appellants herein, defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, to maintain status quo pending disposal of the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit O.S. No. 222 of 2007 before the Court below for specific performance of agreement of sale, said to have been entered between them and the 3rd respondent herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, or in the alternative, for refund of Rs. 2,51,000/- with future interest. They have also filed I.A. No. 347 of 2007 seeking grant of ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and I.A. No. 348 of 2007 seeking grant of ex parte temporary injunction restraining defendants 2 and 3 from changing the physical features of the schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. It was the case of the respondents-plaintiffs that the 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property to them for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- and accordingly an agreement of sale dated 03.04.2006 was entered into between them and the 1st defendant, and that they have also paid a sum of Rs. 2,51,000/- towards advance sale consideration and agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,05,49,000/- on the date of registration, but the 1st defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed and on the other hand, it was reliably learnt by them that the 1st defendant has clandestinely sold the suit schedule property to the appellants herein, defendants 2 and 3, under registered sale deed dated 16.11.2006. The respondents- plaintiffs, therefore, sought temporary injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule property and also restraining defendants 2 and 3, appellants herein, from changing the physical features of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The defendants, though filed counters to the petitions filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, remained ex parte and failed to contest the proceedings before the Court below. The Court below, having gone through the recitals of the original agreement of sale produced by the plaintiffs, though observed that the plaintiffs have got prima facie case, but however held that the plaintiffs have paid only nominal amount of Rs. 2,51,000/- towards advance sale consideration as against the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,08,00,000/-, and if by way of injunction orders, the right of the defendants to enjoy the property is restricted, the defendants will suffer more inconvenience, and that if the defendants alienate the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs can recover the advance sale consideration paid by them together with penal interest and if the plaintiffs suffer any loss due to breach of contract by the defendants, they can also claim damages from the defendants, and thus the plaintiffs failed to establish that balance of convenience lies in their favour and that they would suffer irreparable loss in the event of refusal to grant temporary injunction as sought for. Having held so, the Court below dismissed the petitions filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, but however directed the defendants to maintain status quo as on that date, pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the grant of status quo, the defendants 2 and 3 filed the present appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants 2 and 3 submitted that the Court below, having held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the balance of convenience lies in their favour, ought not to have granted status quo, while dismissing the petitions of the plaintiffs. She further submitted that the appellants have purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration and it would not be just and proper to deprive them of making constructions in the suit schedule property, by granting status quo order, and the order under appeals, therefore, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, on the other hand, supported the order under appeals and submitted that the plaintiffs have got good case to succeed in the suit and if the appellants are permitted to proceed with constructions in the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and, thus, the appellants may not be permitted to proceed with further constructions. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that if at all the respondents-plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the appellants- defendants 2 and 3 will not claim any equities in the property and prayed that the orders under appeals be set aside. Heard both the counsel and perused the order under appeals and other material available on record. The grant of temporary injunction is purely discretionary exercise of power by the Court. However, this power has to be exercised by the Court fairly, equitably and judicially. It is the bounden duty of the Court to examine and find out whether the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of injunction, whether balance of convenience lies in his favour and whether he would suffer irreparable or serious injury, if injunction is not granted, with reference to the material on record. As can be seen from the order under appeals, the Court below, having gone through the recitals of the original agreement of sale produced by the plaintiffs, found that the plaintiffs have got prima facie case to succeed in the suit. However, it observed that the plaintiffs have paid only Rs. 2,51,000/- towards advance sale consideration, as against the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,08,00,000/-, and in case by way of injunction orders the right of the defendants to enjoy the property is restricted, they will suffer more inconvenience, and that in case the defendants alienate the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs can recover the advance sale consideration together with penal interest and can also claim damages for breach of contract. Thus, the Court below held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the balance of convenience lies in their favour and that they would suffer irreparable loss in the event of refusal of temporary injunction. Having held so, the Court below observed that the plaintiffs are not entitled for temporary injunction, but felt that there is necessity to direct the defendants to maintain status quo as on that date, pending disposal of the suit. Accordingly, while dismissing the petitions, it directed the defendants to maintain status quo as on that date pending disposal of the suit. The Court below having categorically held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the balance of convenience lies in their favour and that they would suffer irreparable loss or injury, we fail to understand, why it felt the necessity to direct the defendants to maintain status quo. The order of status quo, granted by the Court below, runs contrary to its own findings, and particularly the principles governing the grant of injunction. Directing the defendants to maintain status quo virtually amounts to injuncting the defendants from enjoying the property. According to the appellants, defendants 2 and 3, they have purchased the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration and they have every right to enjoy their property. In the applications filed by them, seeking condonation of delay that occurred in filing the appeals, they have categorically undertaken that they are prepared to construct the building in the suit schedule property, subject to the result of the suit. This apart, the counsel appearing for them, across the Bar, has undertaken that the appellants will not claim any equities in the event of the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the trial of the suit has already commenced. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the order of the Court below is inconsistent with its own findings and having regard to the undertaking given by the appellants that they will not claim any equities in the event of the suit being decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which is placed on record, we are of the opinion that the order of the Court below cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order under appeals, directing the defendants to maintain status quo, is set aside. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that in the event the respondents-plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the appellants-defendants shall not claim any equities. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ___________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 15th June, 2011 IBL