JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the order dt.13.12.2019 in I.A.No.47 of 2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2019 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet. 2. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. 3. The respondent herein filed the said suit against the appellants for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.21.10.2015 whereunder a total extent of Ac.22.051/2 guntas situated at Mundrai Village of Nangunoor Mandal in Siddipet District was agreed to be sold by the appellants to the respondent and 3 others at Rs.4,83,000/- per acre. The plea of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit 4. According to the respondent, he had paid a consideration of Rs.41,50,000/-. 5. He contended that there is a dispute raised by certain third parties against the appellants in respect of Ac.6.031/2 guntas and an extent of Ac.0.30 was acquired by the Government and if the said extent is deducted, only Ac.15.12 guntas remains; for the said extent, the total consideration is Rs.73,89,900/-; and therefore the respondent had paid more than half of the sale consideration for the said extent. 6. He also contended that the other agreement holders along with him had relinquished their interest in favour of the respondent and so he alone filed the suit. 7. He alleged that he had issued legal notice dt.09.09.2018 to the appellants to execute registered sale deed and accept balance consideration for Ac.15.12 guntas; that the appellants received the same; that they issued reply notice dt.26.11.2018 admitting the execution of the agreement of sale and also acknowledging the receipt of the amount as contended by the respondent, but refused to perform the agreement of sale. Written statement filed by the appellants/defendants 8. Written statement was filed by the appellants admitting the execution of the agreement of sale dt.21.10.2015 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff; and also the fact that they have received Rs.41,50,000/- from the respondent. 9. They also did not dispute that prior to entering into the agreement of sale with the appellants, some neighbours had filed O.S.No.984 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet for perpetual injunction against the appellants, but contended that the respondent was fully aware of the said dispute, and still came forward along with his co-obligants who purchased the land. 10. 10. They denied the allegation of the respondent that physical possession of the suit schedule property had been handed over to the respondent or that any development had been done by the respondent. They also alleged that the respondent waited for 21/2 years for filing the suit and he did not evince any interest to actually purchase the suit schedule property and his only intention is to knock it away for a through away price. 11. It is also alleged that the total sale consideration was to be paid on or before 22.03.2016, but the respondent did not comply with the said requirement and the respondent had paid a portion of the sale consideration on 10.09.2016 long after the time fixed for registration of the property, i.e., 22.03.2016. I.A.No.47 of 2019 12. Along with the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.47 of 2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying for grant of interim injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule lands or creating any charge, encumbrance or third party interest in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the main suit. The respondent, in the said Application, reiterated the contents of the plaint. 13. Counter affidavit was filed by the appellant opposing grant of any interim relief to the respondent and reiterating the contents of the written statement. The order of the Court below 14. On 13.12.2019, the Court below allowed I.A.No.47 of 2019. 15. After referring to the contentions of both the parties, the Court below held that the execution of the agreement of sale on 21.10.2015 in respect of the suit schedule property between the parties is admitted; the legality, validity, enforceability of the same is a question of fact to be decided on evidence at the time of the trial; that contentions raised by the appellants opposing grant of relief to the respondent are questions of fact to be decided on evidence and it would be premature to discuss the same at this stage. 16. It held that if the suit schedule property is alienated or third party interest is created, it would make the matter even more complex leading to multiplicity of litigation and so it was necessary to preserve status quo for ends of justice. The present appeal 17. Assailing the same, this Appeal is filed. 18. 16. It held that if the suit schedule property is alienated or third party interest is created, it would make the matter even more complex leading to multiplicity of litigation and so it was necessary to preserve status quo for ends of justice. The present appeal 17. Assailing the same, this Appeal is filed. 18. Heard Sri Mahadev Anyrambhatla, counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Venkatesh for Sri M.S.Achyuth Bharadwaj, counsel for the respondent. The consideration by the Court 19. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the execution of the suit agreement of sale dt.21.10.2015 by the appellants in favour of the respondent as well as the receipt of consideration of Rs.41,50,000/- from the respondent by the appellants is admitted. 20. Though the suit agreement of sale relates to Ac.22.051/2 guntas in extent, even the appellants admitted in their written statement that there is a civil suit O.S.No.984 of 2016 filed against them by third parties for perpetual injunction because there is a boundary dispute in regard to the extent of Ac.6.031/2 guntas. 21. Though the appellants have sought to contend that the respondent had not made the payments as per the time stipulated in the agreement of sale and obtained registration by 22.03.2016, there is no mention admittedly in the suit agreement of sale that 'time is of essence of the contract between the parties'. 22. In view of this, and when there is a dispute about the substantial extent of the suit schedule property of Ac.6.031/2 guntas, which is admitted by the appellants, they cannot expect the respondent to pay the full sale consideration to them till the matter is amicably resolved. 23. Whether the respondent and his co-obligants under the agreement of sale fully knew about the boundary dispute before the execution of the suit agreement of sale is a question of fact which has to be established during trial. 24. Likewise, whether the co-obligants of the respondent had relinquished their shares in favour of the respondent and were therefore rightly not joined as plaintiffs by the respondent in the suit, is also a matter to be gone into during trial. 25. Having received substantial part of the sale consideration, if the appellants are allowed to alienate any portion of the suit schedule property, third party interests would intervene and cause prejudice to the respondent. 26. 25. Having received substantial part of the sale consideration, if the appellants are allowed to alienate any portion of the suit schedule property, third party interests would intervene and cause prejudice to the respondent. 26. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error of law or fact in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference with the impugned order by this Court in exercise of its appellant jurisdiction. 27. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is dismissed at the admission stage. 28. However the Court below shall decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations made by the trial court or by this court in this order. 29. No costs. 30. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismissed.