Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S. The Grow Infra Thorugh Its Partner … vs Chhotelal @ Chhotu Patel on 5 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 1 MP No.1391/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
MISC. PETITION No.1391 of 2025
M/S. THE GROW INFRA THROUGH ITS PARTNER
SHRI MAHAVIR JAIN
...Petitioner
and
CHHOTELAL @ CHHOTU PATEL AND OTHERS
...Respondents
Reserved on 01.05.2025
Pronounced on 05.05.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Divyakant Lahoti with Shri Rahul Maheshwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for respondents and their
LRs.
Shri Romil Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent
No.16 / State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This Misc. Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, challenging the propriety and legality of the order dated
22.01.2025 passed in I.A. Nos.01/2024 and 02/2024 filed by the
petitioner-herein and I.A. No.03/2024 in RCSA No.270/2023 filed by
respondents / plaintiffs on the file of the learned trial Court i.e. IV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 2 MP No.1391/2025
Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District
Indore, the present petition is filed.
02. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are
arrayed in the suit before the learned trial Court.
03. The suit in RCSA No.270/2023 was filed by the plaintiffs /
respondents-herein against the defendants in the suit seeking
declaratory relief declaring that the sale deed dated 09.04.2019 be
cancelled as void or in the alternative relief directing the defendants to
pay remaining sale consideration a sum of Rs.3,97,29,000/- (Three
Crore Ninety Seven Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Only) as
compensation along with bank interest on ernest money, which are not
paid on time and for permanent injunction and costs.
04. The facts in brief are stated in the petition that the land owned
and possessed by the plaintiffs situated in survey Nos.143, 145, 148,
149, 150 and 151 with total area 8.320 hectares in Village Kawati,
Tehsil Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore. The plaintiffs
offered to sell the subject property to the defendants in respect of land
2.774 hectares out of land in total area 8.320 hectares, total sale
consideration amount in respect of three agreements has been fixed in
a sum of Rs.4,11,00,000/-. On 14.10.2018, at the time of execution of
agreement, defendants paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the
plaintiffs as an advance sale consideration in respect of three
agreements and remaining amount will be paid at the time of
registration of sale deed, accordingly, the sale deed was executed by
them in favour of the defendant No.2 on 09.04.2019, the defendants
conspired together and got the sale deed executed at the price of
Rs.2,30,25,000/- instead of actual transaction of Rs.4,11,00,000/-. To
cheat the plaintiffs, the defendants issued several cheques for payment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 3 MP No.1391/2025
of balance sale consideration, those cheques were presented and
dishonoured, the total balance sale consideration a sum of
Rs.3,97,29,000/- is due by the defendants and notices were issued to
defendants on 24.07.2020 with request to pay balance sale
consideration, the defendant No.2 cheated them and not paid the
amount. On 28.08.2020, plaintiffs received information that the
defendants intended to sell the said property in favour of the third
parties, if they done so, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and
filed the present suit for the relief stated (supra).
05. While pending suit, defendant No.2 filed an application on
02.05.2024 in I.A. No.01/2024 (Annexure P-4) stated that in the plaint
by the plaintiffs, the payment of Rs.3,97,29,000/- is payable by the
defendants without any documentary evidence. Further stated that
defendant No.2 is liable to pay the entire sale consideration of
Rs.2,30,25,000/- to plaintiffs as per the sale deed dated 09.04.2019,
issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,96,000/- has been paid by the
defendants at the time of sale deed and enchased the same and the
remaining consideration of Rs.2,19,29,000/- is yet to be paid.
Defendant No.2 is ready and willing to pay the balance consideration
as per the sale deed and submitted bank draft of Bandhan Bank, total
Rs.2,19,25,000/- in the names of plaintiffs along with the application
with bank draft permitting him to deposit the said amount in the
Court.
06. Plaintiffs filed an application on 09.12.2024 i.e. I.A.
No.02/2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking for relief to
delete / remove the alternative prayer sought in the plaint as they are
not willing to receive the balance consideration. If the said
amendment application is allowed, it does not change the nature of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 4 MP No.1391/2025
case and it is necessary for the plaintiffs and filed application to
remove / delete the alternative prayer sought in the plaint and he prays
to allow the petition.
07. Reply filed by the respondents stated that plaintiffs asked to
receive compensation of their remaining consideration of
Rs.3,97,29,000/- along with interest from the defendants. The
application was presented by the defendants under Order XXIV Rule
1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC on 02.05.2024, thereafter, the
present application is filed to amend the plaint seeking relief to
delete / remove the alternative prayer sought in the plaint, if the Court
is of the view that if such amendment is allowed, the defendants shall
suffer irreparable loss and injury and there is no absolute rule that in
every case such amendment should be allowed, further stated that if
such amendment is allowed, it causes hardship and prejudice to the
defendants, therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
08. Another application i.e. I.A. No.03/2024 filed by petitioner /
defendant No.2 on 24.09.2024 stated that plaintiffs filed a suit against
the defendants for declaration declaring the sale deed is void and for
permanent injunction and seeking alternative relief to pay the
remaining consideration of Rs.3,97,29,000/- as compensation along
with bank interest on the ernest money for due to the non-payment of
remaining consideration. Further stated that defendants are ready and
willing to pay entire amount of Rs.3,97,29,000/- has already got bank
draft of Rs.2,19,29,000/- dated 20.03.2024, the remaining amount
including compensation and damage of Rs.1,80,71,000/- in various
cheques dated 10.08.2024, those cheques are presented by the
defendants along with application and he prays to accept the
application along with cheques submitted by the defendants, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 5 MP No.1391/2025
application filed by the defendants to delete / remove the alternative
relief may be dismissed.
09. After elaborate hearing from either side, the learned trial Court
considered all the pleadings and averments in I.A. Nos.01 and 03 of
2024 filed by the petitioner / defendant No.2 under Order XXIV Rule
1 and 2 of CPC dismissed and the I.A. No.02/2024 filed by the
plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to delete / remove the
alternative relief sought in the plaint was allowed.
10. Feeling aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order in I.A.
Nos.01 to 03 of 2024 dated 22.01.2025 common order passed by the
learned trial Court, the petitioner-herein / defendant No.2 in the suit
filed the present Misc. Petition.
11. The brief facts are stated in the petition that the respondents
No.1 to 14 / plaintiffs in the suit are the owners of the land bearing
survey Nos.143, 145, 148, 149, 150 and 151 situated in Village
Kawati, Tehsil Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore
admeasuring 8.320 hectares. Further stated that the petitioner /
defendant No.2 is approached by the respondents / plaintiffs offered to
sell the suit property after negotiation arrived at a conclusion of total
sale consideration of Rs.2,30,25,000/- and executed registered sale,
the schedule payment of consideration is mentioned in the sale deed
and delivered the possession of the property to the defendants and
their names were mutated in the reveune records. The copy of the sale
deed dated 09.04.2019 executed by respondents No.1 to 14 in favour
of the petitioner filed Annexure P-1, further stated that the plaintiffs
filed a suit in RCSA No.270/2023 on the file of learned IV Additional
District Judge, Dr.Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow for the relief of declaration
and permanent injunction and alternative relief sought for direction
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 6 MP No.1391/2025
against the petitioner / defendant No.2 to pay balance sale
consideration of Rs.3,97,29,000/- to the respondents No.1 to 14 /
plaintiffs. The petitioner is the bona fide purchaser and filed an
application under Order XXIV Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on 02.05.2024
along with demand draft of Rs.2,19,29,000/- before learned trial
Court, after filing the above I.A. No.01/2024, the respondents /
plaintiffs with a mala fide intention filed an application under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC to delete / remove the alternative prayer sought in the
plaint, further stated that the petitioner filed another application under
Order XXIV Rule 1 and 2 of CPC undertaking to pay additional
amount to the complete statisfaction of the alternative relief sought by
the respondents / plaintiffs claiming of Rs.3,97,29,000/-. The learned
trial Court after hearing all the parties vide order dated 22.01.2025,
dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner / defendant No.2 and
allowed the application filed by the respondents No.1 to 14 / plaintiffs
in a very mechanical manner without appreciating the factual and
legal aspects.
12. Being aggreived by the common order dated 22.01.2025 passed
by the IV Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow,
District Indore in RCSA No.270/2023 has preferred the present
petition.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted arguments that
the learned trial court has grossly erred in holding the proceedings and
dismissed the I.A. Nos.01 and 03 of 2024 and allowed the I.A. No.2 of
2024 even after the petitioner permitting to deposit the entire amount
as claimed by the respondents. Further submitted that the learned trial
Court ought to have allowed the applications filed by the petitioner
under Order XXIV Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, if those applications allowed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 7 MP No.1391/2025
by the learned trial Court, no prejudice would be caused to either of
the parties and those amounts will be withdrawn subject to the result
of the suit. Further submitted that the learned trial Court erred in
allowing the application filed by the respondents No.1 to 14 /
plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for removal / deletion of
alternative relief for recovery of amount directing the petitioner-herein
to pay Rs.3,97,29,000/-, further submitted that having sought for
alternative relief for payment of balance sale consideration as stated
above and in contrary filed an application Order VI Rule 17 of CPC
for removal / deletion of alternative relief is not permissible even
though the entire sale consideration has not, in fact, been paid, the
same could not be a ground to cancel the sale deed. Further submitted
that if a sale deed of an immovable property has to be for a price, the
said price may be payable in future, which may be partly paid or
remaining part can be made available in future, the same could not be
a ground to cancel the sale deed dated 09.04.2019, further submitted
that the plaintiffs in the suit pleaded that by playing fraud with a
deceptive intention, the petitioner-herein obtained sale deed from them
on 09.04.2019 and seeks for cancellation of sale deed and if it is so,
they would file a suit immediately in the year 2019 or 2020, they have
filed the present suit in 2023 and for seeking alternative relief for
payment of balance sale consideration, further submitted that the said
sale deed executed by respondents No.1 to 14 / plaintiffs, if any
deceptive intention of playing fraud, one among them can be cheated,
but all the plaintiffs (14 persons) it is impssible to cheat them, the
value of the land is increased, the motive behind them by the third
parites is that they want to seek relief to remove the alternative relief,
which is not permissible under law by relying a decision reported in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 8 MP No.1391/2025
the case of Vidyadhar vs. Manikrao reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573,
Yogendra Prasad Singh Through LRs. vs. Ram Bacchan Devi
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 894 and Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives
and Ors. reported in 2020 (7) SCC 366 and he prays for allowing the
petition and set aside the orders in I.A. No.01 and 03 of 2024 under
Order XXIV Rule 1 and 2 of CPC dated 22.01.2025 in RCSA
No.270/2023 and allowed the application and set aside the order of the
learned trial Court in I.A. No.02/2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC
and to maintain the alternative relief sought in the plaint.
14. Shri Jintendra Verma, learned counsel for the respondents
entered appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3A, 3B, 3C1,
3C3, 3D to F, 4A to 4E and respondent No.12 and notice has been
served on rest of the respondents, no one has entered appearance on
their behalf and no reply has been filed on their behalf.
(ii). The learned counsel for the respondents advanced the
arguments that the plaintiffs are illiterate and living by agricultural
work and with a deceptive intention the petitioner-herein played fraud
and obtained sale deed from them by paying little amount out of
Rs.4,11,00,000/- and issued a cheques dated 20.06.2020, which would
be ineffective and the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale
deed, further submitted that the plaintiffs filed an application under
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to remove the alternative relief, the relief
sought in the amendment petition is appropriate and seeks for removal
of the alternative relief and for allowing the amendment application,
further submitte that the nature of the suit would not be changed and
no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and the order passed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 9 MP No.1391/2025
the learned trial Court is just and proper and needs no interference by
this Court and the prays to dismiss the present petition.
15. In view of the arguments advance by respective counsels, the
points for determination are :
“(i). Whether, the findings of the learned trial Court are
sustainable or manifestly perverse and contrary to the law and
needs interference by this Court ?
(ii). Whether, there are any merits in the petition to allow ?”
16. Since all the above points are interrelated to each other and they
are being dealt together.
17. In order to constitute a sale, there has to be a transfer of
ownership from one person to another and same has to be for a “price-
paid or promised part-paid and part-promised”. The words “price-paid
or promised or part-paid and part-promised” indicate that actual
payment of whole of the price at the time of execution of sale deed
dated 09.04.2019 is not a sine qua non for completion of sale
transaction. The real test, to determine whether the transaction is a
transaction of sale or not, is to ascertain the intention of the parties, in
order to constitute a sale, the parties must intend to transfer the
ownership of the property and they must also intend that the price
would be paid either present or in future. The intention of the parties is
to effect the same can be gathered from the recitals in the sale deed, a
sale deed for price of an immovable property has to be for a price. The
said price may be payable in future, which may be partly paid or
remaining part can be made payable in future and the plaintiffs agreed
to receive the balance sale consideration as per the schedule
mentioned in the sale deed, accordingly, the cheques were issued by
mentioning the future date in the year 2020.
18. In the instant case, at the time of contract, advance sale
consideration paid by defendant No.2, three agreements were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 10 MP No.1391/2025
executed, the total sale consideration as per sale deed of
Rs.2,30,25,000/-, the suit filed by the plaintiffs, they seek alternative
relief of Rs.3,97,29,000/- directing the defendants to pay the amount
with interest. After the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants filed
two applications i.e. I.A. Nos.01 and 03 of 2024 under Order XXIV
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, permitting him to deposit the amounts claimed
by the plaintiffs in alternative relief, admittedly, after filing of I.A.
No.01/2024 dated 02.05.2024 the plaintiffs changed their mind and
filed application Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to remove the alternative
relief, which are sought in the plaint and defendants filed detailed
reply stated that the alternative relief sought by the plaintiffs cannot be
removed and the nature of the suit will change and the amount
deposited by the defendants for the relief sought in alternative relief,
no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs, if the alleged fraud
played by the defendants, the plaintiffs would not wait for 5 years for
filing suit from the date of sale deed and no notices were issued by
them prior to filing of the suit and stated that the sale deed obtained by
them by playing fraud, if it is so, they would not have seek for
alternative relief directing them to pay amount of Rs.3,97,29,000/- as
compensation and interest on the ernest money to be paid by the
defendants for purchasing the property.
19. In a case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
(Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Ors. 1. Para 29.9
reads as follows:
“29.9. In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the
averments of the plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale
consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground
for cancellation of the sale deed. The plaintiffs may have other
remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but1 2020 (7) SCC 366
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 11 MP No.1391/2025could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered
sale deed……..”
20. In the light of the above judgment, even though the entire sale
consideration had not, in fact, been paid, the same could not be ground
to cancel the sale deed, the option left open to the plaintiffs to recover
the balance sale consideration, accordingly, they have sought for
alternative relief of payment of balance consideration, in such
situation, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs in I.A. No.02/2024 is
not appropriate.
21. In a case of Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao2. Para 29.08 reads as
follows:
“29.8. This Court held that the words “price paid or promised or
part-paid and part-promised” indicates that actual payment of the
whole of the price at the time of the execution of the sale deed is
not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole
of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and
thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title
would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-
payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity
of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even
if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be
invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a “sale”, the
parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on
the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future.
The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed,
the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record.”
22. In view of the above judgments, the transfer of ownership has
been affected for the price-promised. Merely because cheques have
subsequently been dishonoured and not payment of balance sale
consideration, the sale deed is not vitiated in law, therefore, the afore-
mentioned reasons, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the
cancellation of the sale deed as void. In view of the aforesaid
conclusion, the defendants came forward and filed I.A. Nos.01 and 03
of 2024 seeking relief permitting him to deposit the amount sought in
alternative relief by the plaintiffs, which is an appropriate. The learned
2 (1999) 3 SCC 573
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 12 MP No.1391/2025
trial Court has not properly appreciated factual aspects and law and
dismissed without any proper reasons and the findings of learned trial
Court is perverse and not sustainable and needs interference by this
Court.
23. In a case of M. Revenna Vs Anjanamma (Dead) by Legal
Representives and Ors.3. Para 7 reads as follows:
“7. ………..There cannot be any dispute that an amendment
cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all
circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the
pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to
take into consideration whether the application for amendment is
bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such
prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated
adequately in terms of money. ”
24. The above judgment is squarely applies to the respondents’ /
defendants’ case after filing the application under Order XXIV Rule 1
and 2 of CPC by the defendant No.2 (Purchaser) seeks permission to
deposit to balance sale consideration amount as sought in the
alternative relief of Rs.3,97,29,000/-, later, the plaintiffs filed an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to delete / remove the
alternative relief certainly which causes prejudice to the defendants,
which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money and
certainly creates multiplicity of litigation, the balance amount is
deposited by the defendants as sought in the alternative relief, no
prejudice caused to either of the parties, if the plaintiffs succeed in the
suit for cancellation of sale deed, the learned trial Court directing the
defendants to receive the amount deposited by him vice versa if the
defendants succeed in the suit, the learned trial Court directed the
plaintiffs to receive the balance consideration deposited by the
defendants as claimed in the alternative relief sought in the plaint,
therefore, the relief sought by the defendants in I.A. Nos.01 and 3 of
3 (2019) 4 SCC 332
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 13 MP No.1391/2025
2024 permitting to deposit the amounts as sought by the plaintiffs in
alternative relief of Rs.3,97,29,000/- is appropriate, learned trial Court
erred in dismissing the application filed by the defendants and
allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by the
plaintiffs, which indicates the order of the learned trial Court is
perverse and arbitrary and not sustainable and needs interference by
this Court.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents cited decisions in the case
of Shri Ram and Anr. vs. I Additional District Judge and Ors.
reported in (2001) 3 SCC 24 and in the case of Narendra Kumar
Mittal and Ors. vs. Nupur Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and
Anr. reported in (2020) 20 SCC 158. Perusal of the above said
decisions, which are not much useful to the case of the respondents.
26. The learned trial Court without giving any reasons and passed
the orders cumulatively in the above all I.As., which should have
passed separately and on perusal of the orders of the trial Court is
cryptic and not well reasoned order, in regard to the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion
that the application for amendment of the plaint for deleting / removal
of the alternative prayer in the plaint are not bona fide and would
change the nature and character of the suit, due to allowing the said
application in I.A. No.02/2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC would
lead to a travesty justice, hence, to grant the permission for
amendment of plaint for deleting alternative relief after filing the
application by the defendants under Order XXIV Rule 1 and 2 of CPC
seeks permission to deposit the balance sale consideration as sought in
the alternative relief, at the stage, to allow the amendment for removal
of the alternative prayer under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in the plaint
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:11765 14 MP No.1391/2025
would causes serious prejudice to defendants. Accordingly, the order
of the learned trial Court in I.A. No.02/2024 under Order VI Rule 17
of CPC is set aside and relief of alternative prayer would be
maintained. The orders passed in I.A. Nos.01 and 03 of 2024 under
Order XXIV Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and findings of the learned trial
Court dated 22.01.2025 are manifestly perverse and are set aside.
27. In the result, the Misc. Petition is allowed, and the impugned
order dated 22.01.2025 in I.A. Nos.01 and 03 of 2024 under Order
XXIV Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in suit in RCSA No.270/2023 passed by
the learned IV Additional Distict Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow
is hereby set aside and the order of the learned trial Court dated
22.01.2025 in I.A. No.02 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in
suit in RCSA No.270/2023 is also hereby set aside and would
maintain the alternative relief sought in the plaint; and
(ii). further directed the defendants to deposit the amounts, which
are mentioned in the above I.As. No.01 and 03 of 2024 under Order
XXIV Rule 1 and 2 of CPC within six weeks from the date of this
order before the learned trial Court; and
(iii). learned trial Court shall ensure disposal of the suit, as directed,
within nine months as an outer limit. The parties shall co-operate with
the learned trial Court to enable the learned trial Court to decide the
suit as directed above.
28. Both the parties bear their own costs.
29. As a sequel the misc. applications, if any, shall stand closed.
(DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J)
Anushree
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 05-05-2025
16:53:32