Allowed

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam v. Shri Nukala Raghuaveer Reddy

Telangana HC24 Jan 2023CRP/2552/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed ex-parte interim injunction order by District Court requiring petitioner to deposit balance consideration for specific performance suit without verifying vendor's conditions or hearing respondents, directing District Court to hear both sides.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 04.11.2022 set aside; District Court directed to hear both sides and pass appropriate order.

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam Vs Shri Nukala… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

r.rnrf4:5_-.'.-...--i_r'.-i

¶2

[^321s I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2552 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 04-11-2022 passed in 1.A.No.622 oI 2022 in O.S.No.104 of 2022, on the file of the court of the Honorable Principal District Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District, at Bhongir.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam, S/o. late V.Venkatesham, Rt/o. Plot Nos. 77 and 78, Vinayaknagar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Shri Nukala Raghuaveer Reddy, S/o. Nukala Saidi Reddy, Managing Partner of M/s.Godavari Agro Farms, a^partnership firm, rep. by R/o. Plot No. 'l32,Phase-4, Behind BSNL Quarters, Maszid Road, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District - 500 070.

¶14

Katta Venkat Reddy, S/o. Katta Linga Reddy, aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. B-6-1641F21212, F.C.l.Colony, Phase-ll, Road No.5, Chintalkunta Check Post, Biramalguda, Saroornagar, R.R.District. - 500074.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 04-1^'l-2022 passed in 1.A.No.622 of 2022 in O.S.No. 104 of 2022, imposing the condition of deposit of Rs.9,62,12,500 in the suit account failing which the lnjunction order stands cancelled on the file of Honorable Principal District Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District, at Bhongir pending

¶18

disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Between:

¶21

Shri Nukala Raghuaveer Reddy, S/o. Nukala Saidi Reddy, Managing Partner of M/s.Godavari Agyro Farms, a partnership firm, rep. by Rl/o. Plot No. 132,Phase-4, Behind BSNL Quarters, Maszid Road, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District - 50() 070.

¶22

Katta Venkat Reddy, S/o. Katta Linga Reddy, aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, RI/o. H.No. 8-6-1641F21212, F.C.l.Colony, Phase-ll, Road No.5, Chintalkunta Checl.r Post, Biramalguda, Saroornagar, R.R.District. - 500074.

¶23

...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS

¶24

AND

¶25

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam, Sio. late V.Venkatesham, Fl/o. Plot Nos. 77 and 78, Vinayaknaga., Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dt.15/'l 112022 passed in the CRP.No.2552 of 2022 and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the CASE-

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. C HANUMANTHA RAO

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondents: M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

¶32

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI CML REVISION PETITION No.2552 of 2O22

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Honble Principal District Judge, Yadadri Bhongir, at Bhongir dated 04.I1.2022 in I.A.No.622 of 2022 in O.S.No. 1O4 ot 2022.

¶35

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the Suit in O.S.No.1O4 of 2022, which is hled for specif-rc performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 29.08.2020. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed I.A.No.622 of 2022 along with the Suit seeking interim direction to the respondents not to alienate the Suit Schedule Properties till the Suit is decided. By orders dated 04.11.2022, the District Court has granted ex-parte interim injunction subject to a condition that the petitioner deposits the balance sale consideration i.e., an amount of Rs.9,62, 12,500/ - to the credit of the Suit on or before 24.11.2022 failing which, the ad-interim injunction would stand cancelled. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶36

This Court, vide order dated 15. I | .2022, has^granted interim suspension of the samc. The respondents have put in^appearance and are seeking vacation of [he interim direction^passed by^{this Court.}

¶37

PIIID.J C.R. P. No.2s59 Df 2022

¶38

¶39

Lcarned couns€:l for the petitioner subrnitted that an unregistercd Agrecment of Salc tras been cniercd into with the respondents herein an<l rhe petitioner has already paid a srlm of Rs.2,OO,00,O0O/-(Rupees 'irvo Clores) onlv an.l the payment of the .balance amolrnt of Rs.9,52,12,500i^-(Rupees ltline Crore Sixty Trvo Lakh Twelve 1'housand Firrc i{undred) only, was suhject to fulfillment of certain conditions suclr as thc conditions at Clause 9, lO, 12 ana 13 of the agreernent, rvlr icl'r arc statcci uelow:

¶40

"9. '[t:.e uenclor has this dag hand.ed ouer Xero.r. copies of TitLe Deeds, Pass Book/ Title Deed and Pah,ani to tte Yendee and agreed to hand. ouer the originol Pass Bookr"litie Deed an.d original riccuments, along utith No P 7'.Certificate, to the Vendee at tht time of payment of r c rnai ni ng sal e con s id e ration..

¶41

i0. The Vendee shol! be at libertg to nominate anv person on itis beholf for getting the registration ar.d the Vendor, afier getting the Portnership Ftrm reconstituted uith the legal lLeirs of Lote K.Padmamma, bA getting it registered with the Registrar of Firms, under specific authorizatiott in Partnership Deed dulg empoueing Shir Nukola Raghuueera Red.dy, to execute Sale Deed, for and on behalf of the Partnershtp firm., all the lands leld bg it, shal,l exeq)te the rerylar registered Sale Deed, A.G.P.A. or any oth.er conueAance as per the u.ish of the l/endee u.tith usual tenns eitlrcr in. the name of tle Vendee or in his n.ominee's neme as mag be directed bg the Vendee afler receiuing the remaining sale consideration, in full and final satisfaction from the Vend.ee, bg conueqing a good, marketable and subsisting title and the Vendor sholl haue no objection for the same.

¶42

PMD,J C.R.P.No.2552 of 2O22

¶43

¶44

'l )

¶45

TtLe Vendor shall prior to the date of registration get the land measured bA Gout.Suruegor as per Teepan, bg demorcating the meets and bounds on the spot, at its own cost and effort and receiDe the bolance sale consideration in proportionate to the measurement actuallg arriued on tLe spot, at the rate stipulated supra.

¶46

Time is the most essence of th].S Agreement and both the parties hereto agree not to flout ang of the terms ond conditions and shall abide stictlA to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the uendor shall not demand ang additionol sum except the balance sale consideration if the uendee pags the same within ttte stipulated period. It is hereby agreed. that both the parties are entitled to fle suit lor^{seeking spectfic perforrnonceof this Agreement,againstthe party} ened in performing its dutg as per the couenants of this Agreement."

¶47

It is submitted that since the vendor did not fulhll the above conditions, the petitioner had also issued a legal notice and a reply notice was given. Since, the Agreement of Sale did not fructify into Sale Deed and the respondents did not fulhll the conditions, the petitioner filed a Suit for specific performance. It is submitted that instead of granting the interim direction as prayed for by the petitioner, the District Court imposed the condition that the petitioner should deposit baiance of sale consideration into the Court within the specified period. According to the petitioner, this condition imposed by the lower Court, without ever there being a request from the other side is illegal and arbitrary.

¶48

Lcarned counsel for the respondents tried to support the orCer^{of the} Lower Court on merits of the issue.

¶49

Pl,{:),., C.li P.No.25i2 of2022

¶50

¶51

Llpon hearing both the parties, this Court finds that the ex-parte directicn given to the petitioner in I.t.No.622 of 2022 by the Dis.:trict Llourt to deposit the cntire balancc sale consideration u.ithout even veriiying whether the conditions of Agrecm,-'nt of Saie have been iulfillerc by the ottrer side and withcrut therebeing an1, appeaiance or representation from the responrlents prima _frrcte not _iustilicci. ln l,ieu, of the same, this Court deems it fit arrd proper to set aside the order dated 04.11.202.2 and direct the Distrjct Clourt to hear both sides and pasl; appropriate orders thereon.

¶52

Accordingly, the Civil Rcvi:,:ion Pctition is allowed. There shall tre no order iis to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision Petitiorr, shall stand closed.

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a^

SEC*{ON OFFICER

t-..-..-..,

To,

Principal District Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District,^{at Bhongir}

¶61

2 One CC to SRl. C HANU MANTHA RAO Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s CHANDRASEN^{LAWOFFICES Advocate[OPUC]}

¶62

4 Two CD Copies kar BB

¶63

HIGH COURT

¶64

DATED:2410112023

¶65

.1 r 5 'l A.
(
co I 1 !q liil ?il?3

ORDER

CRP.No.2552 of 2022

ALLOWING CRP

WITHOUT COSTS

6 c"pjo E<tryzlIL

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam v. Shri Nukala Raghuaveer Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam v. Shri Nukala Raghuaveer Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sai Ramana Metal Industries Vs State of Telangana

Infosage Systems India Private Limited Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Animisha Muppidi Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Naveen Associates Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Raoof Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Msr India Ltd. Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Tsspdcl) and 4 others