Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - (1.)Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant in CMA.No.45 of 2021, Sri Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants Nos.2 & 3 in CMA.No.43/2021 and Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff in CMA.No.45 of 2021 and perused the material on record.
(2.)The appellants in CMA.No.43 of 2021 are defendants Nos.2 and 3 and the appellant in CMA No.45 of 2021 is the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is shown as 1st respondent in both the appeals. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule-1 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") challenging the judgment and order, dtd. 4/12/2020, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in I.A.No.334 of 2017 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.108 of 2017 (G.Giridhar v. S.Chandra Mohan Reddy and others), by which, I.A.No.334 of 2017 was allowed granting interim injunction restraining the respondents therein, their agents, successors or anybody on their behalf from executing or creating any registered document of alienation or encumbrance in respect of petition schedule property pending disposal of the suit.
(3.)The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the plaintiff/1st respondent filed O.S.No.108 of 2017 seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dtd. 11/3/2014 against the 1st defendant directing him to perform his part of the agreement by receiving the entire balance of sale consideration in respect of the suit schedule property and in case of his failure to do so, to enable the plaintiff/1st respondent to get the same performed through the process of court and to deliver vacant possession of the property.