logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 1003 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : CMA No. 341 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Parties : M. Venkata Ramana Versus Vidyavathi U Dixit @ V.U.Dixit @ Vidya Dixit
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: M W R. Jayakar, learned counsel. For the Respondent: K. Ganesh Goud, learned counsel.
Date of Judgment : 23-09-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order dated 08.07.2026 in I.A.No.698 of 2025 in O.S.No.138 of 2026 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Court (‘Trial Court’) dismissing the said I.A. filed by the appellant/plaintiff for an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from

selling or alienating or mortgaging or gifting the petition schedule property to third parties pending disposal of the main Suit.

2. By the impugned order dated 08.07.2026, the Trial Court found that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury, as well as the unblemished conduct required to seek an injunction against the respondent/defendant.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant.

4. From the facts reflected in the documents placed before us, it is evident that the appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit (O.S.No. 138 of 2025) for specific performance for a direction on the defendant to execute and register a Sale Deed dated 06.11.2024 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. The appellant/plaintiff relied on the Agreement of Sale dated 06.11.2024. The appellant/plaintiff also sought a direction against the respondent/defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.5.75 crores.

5. The appellant/plaintiff filed an I.A. in the said Suit (I.A.No.698 of 2025) for ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from selling or alienating or mortgaging or gifting the petition schedule property.

6. The appellant/plaintiff’s case was that pursuant to the Agreement of Sale dated 06.11.2024, the appellant/plaintiff completed the entire construction and requested the defendant to provide the necessary documents for processing the requisite certificates. The consistent case of the appellant/plaintiff was that, while the appellant was ready with the sale consideration as per the Agreement of Sale dated 06.11.2024 and despite several attempts and requests made by the petitioner, the respondent failed to register the Sale Deed.

7. The respondent/defendant’s case is that the respondent directed the appellant/plaintiff to cancel the Agreement of Sale dated 06.11.2024 since the respondent subsequently found that the petitioner had cheated the respondent by taking an amount of Rs.10 lakh on the pretext of processing fees to the competent authorities.

8. The impugned order records the respective submissions made by the appellant and the respondent and also records, pertinently, that the dispute was settled between the parties when the respondent refunded Rs.10 lakh and Rs.15 lakh to the petitioner through RTGS.

9. This is also the submission made by counsel appearing for the respondent; in effect, that the respondent had refunded the entirety of the Rs.25 lakh to the petitioner much before the filing of the Suit. The petitioner had given Rs.25 lakh to the respondent as an advance under the Agreement of Sale dated 06.11.2024.

10. Although counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner contends that there was an earlier Agreement of Sale executed between the parties on 18.04.2024, we find such a submission to be irrelevant in the present proceedings since the plaintiff filed the I.A. on the strength of the Agreement of Sale dated 06.11.2024. In any event, paragraph 19 of the impugned order records that the earlier Agreement dated 18.04.2024 was cancelled.

11. The Trial Court found that several material facts were suppressed by the appellant including the fact that the respondent transferred Rs.10 lakh on 28.10.2024 and Rs.15 lakh on 11.11.2024. None of these transactions were disputed by the appellant. The Trial Court further found that the appellant failed to disclose these transactions in its pleadings or to offer an explanation as to the suppression regarding how the appellant received these amounts from the respondent.

12. The Trial Court accordingly found that the appellant had approached the Court with unclean hands and suppressed material facts with regard to critical information.

13. We agree with the reasons given by the Trial Court with regard to the discretion exercised by the Court in matters of interlocutory injunctions and how the suppression of facts has a material bearing on the exercise of that discretion.

14. The Trial Court noted that an order of injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can only be passed when the Court is absolutely certain of the clean conduct of the appellant/plaintiff. The Trial Court found that the suppression of material facts on the part of the appellant would disentitle the petitioner from any discretionary relief, including a restraint on the respondent from alienating or selling or mortgaging or gifting the petition schedule property.

15. We accordingly do not find any scope for interference in the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the Trial Court

16. CMA No.341 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal