TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THESE two appeals have been filed from a common order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by which the High Court had affirmed an order of the Second Additional City Civil Judge at Hyderabad, disposing of an application for injunction filed at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant on two applications for injunction in a suit for recovery of possession and damages. The plaintiff/appellant alleged in their plaint that they are the owner of 67,824.50 sq. yards of land, situated at Borabanda, Fathenagar, Ashok Marg, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The plaintiff-appellant as well as the defendants/respondents executed a Development Agreement cum Power of Attorney on 21st of September, 2007. Under the said Agreement, the defendants/respondents agreed to pay an aggregate sum of Rs. 30.50 crores in the following manner :- i) Rs. 13.50 crores by way of non-refundable amount. ii) Rs. 16.72 crores for utilizing the consultations, advice and services of the petitioner over the suit property along with service tax o the said amount for which invoices had been raised by the plaintiff/appellant. iii) Rs. 28,36,525/- towards the cost of land. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that since the defendants/respondents had acted in breach of the agreement, the same was duly terminated. Some of the breaches of the agreement in question, as alleged by the plaintiff/appellant, are as follows :- i) The respondent No. 1 issued 12 post dated cheques for a total sum of Rs. 16.72 crores - 11 post dated cheqeus for Rs. 1.40 crores each and one post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 1.32 Crores. ii) The respondent did not furnish a Bank Guarantee for the amount of Rs. 16.72 crores and also did not pay the service tax payable on the said amount. iii) Out of the 12 post dated cheques given by the Respondent, 2 cheques were honoured, 4 of Rs. 1.4 crores each were dishonoured on presentation and balance cheques were not presented. iv) The respondent no. 1 did not carry out construction in accordance with the sanctioned scheme. v) The respondents entered into agreement with third parties without furnishing any details thereof. vi) The respondents were selling dwelling units to persons who cannot be termed as members of the weaker sections of the society." Since the agreement was terminable and when it was found by the plaintiff-appellant that the defendants/respondents were proceeding to change the nature and character of the suit property, a suit has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of possession and damages.
(3.) IN the aforesaid suit, two applications for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by the plaintiff-appellant. IN one application, the main relief that was claimed by the plaintiff- appellant was to restrain the defendants/respondents from alienating or transferring the suit property including the structures coming up thereon and in the other, for injunction over the suit property from changing the nature and character thereof pending disposal of the suit. While dealing with the applications for injunction, the Second Additional City Civil Judge at Hyderabad had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to find out the extent of construction raised by the defendants/respondents in the suit property as the plaintiff-appellant sought to contend that there was no construction at all in the suit property. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial Court submitted his report, which is already on record. While deciding the applications for injunction, the said report was taken into consideration by the trial Court and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court was prima facie satisfied that substantial construction was undertaken and completed by the defendants/respondents, which had required them to invest crores of rupees. The trial Court, considering this fact that substantial construction was completed, refused to grant an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff-appellant from making any further construction in the suit property but the applications for injunction were, however, disposed of with the following conditions :- "1) That the defendants/respondents shall deposit the balance value of the property, which comes to around Rs. 28,00,000/- into Court within one month. 2) That it shall furnish bank guarantee for the value of the unrealized post dated cheques, and pay/deposit the value of four cheques, which were dishonoured, within one month from today. 3) That the defendants/respondents shall not claim equities over the construction made in the land and they are bound by the decision in the suit. The Defendants/respondents shall furnish the particulars of the prospective buyers of the residential units in advance to the Competent Authority/Urban Land Ceiling, and 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." ;