Ece Industries Limited vs S.P.Real Estate Developers P.Ltd.& Anr

vi) The respondents were selling dwelling units to persons who cannot be termed as members of the weaker sections of the society."

7. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, two appeals were preferred by the plaintiff/appellant before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which by the impugned order, 5 had affirmed the order of the trial Court on the question of construction in the suit property, but set aside the directions given by the trial Court so far as Clause Nos. 1 and 2, as mentioned above, are concerned in the order of the trial Court. It is these concurrent orders, which are now under challenge before us in these appeals.

20. Accordingly, in view of our discussions made hereinabove, we are, therefore, of the view that the balance of convenience lies against granting an order of injunction, which, if granted, will substantially and irreparably injure and prejudice the defendants/respondents. For the reasons aforesaid, we are, 17 therefore, of the view that the High Court was fully justified in affirming the order of the trial Court refusing to grant any order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

21. That apart, in our view, when the High Court as well as the trial Court had refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant based on consideration of materials on record and after considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of the parties and when such findings of the High Court as well as of the trial Court do not suffer from any perversity or arbitrariness, it is not open for this court to interfere with such order of the High Court as well as of the trial Court.

22. However, there is one another aspect of the matter. As noted hereinearlier, the trial Court, while refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant, has given certain directions to the defendants/respondents, which have already been noted hereinearlier. In view of the fact that the Clause Nos. 1 and 2 have already been complied with by the defendants/respondents, those clauses need not remain. So 18 far as Clause No. 3 is concerned, it appears to us that the said clause should remain, that is to say, the defendants/respondents shall not claim equities over the construction made in the suit property and they would be bound by the decision in the suit. Furthermore, the defendants/respondents, as directed by the trial Court, shall furnish particulars of the prospective buyers of the residential units in advance to the Competent Authority/Urban Land Ceiling as it must be made clear to the prospective buyers that their purchases are subject to the result of the suit by making a `specific recital' in the agreement of sale or sale deed, as the case may be.

23. In view of our discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in these appeals.

24. We, however, make it clear that whatever observations we have made while deciding these two appeals, would not stand in the way of the Courts below from deciding the merits of the suit and it is also made clear that the trial Court shall not be 19 influenced by any of the observations or findings made in this order or of the High Court, while deciding the application for injunction.

25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit at an early date, preferably within six months from the date of filing the written statement by the defendants/respondents. The defendants/respondents are directed to file their written statement within four weeks from this date, if not filed in the meantime.

26. The appeals are thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.