Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 704 (AP)

Sagi Koteswara Rao v. Jai Bhavani Constructions

2022-08-01

G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J. - The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 96 of 2021 is the Appellant in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Defendants are the Respondents. 2. The C.M.A. No. 127 of 2022 is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant challenging the Order passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated 16.03.2022 in I.A. No. 560 of 2021 in O.S. No. 96 of 2021. 3. The C.M.A. No. 166 of 2022 is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant challenging the Order passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated 16.03.2022 in I.A. No. 559 of 2021 in O.S. No. 96 of 2021. 4. I.A. No. 560 of 2021 is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') seeking Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents from making further constructions in the Petition Schedule Property till the disposal of the suit. 5. I.A. No. 559 of 2021 is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner till the disposal of the suit. 6. Learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada passed two separate Orders on 16.03.2022 dismissing both the Applications. 7. As the facts are identical and the only difference is in the prayers in the above mentioned two Interlocutory Applications, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by this Common Order. 8. At the outset, it is to be stated that the observations made while passing this Order, would only be limited for the purpose of disposing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. It is needless to state that these observations would not bind the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in disposing of the main suit in an uninfluenced manner on merits, as these observations are only at this pre-trial stage. PLAINTIFF'S CASE: 9.1. The facts that are relevant in the present case are that the Plaintiff/Appellant filed O.S. No. 96 of 2021 seeking Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 13.09.2013. He had stated in the Plaint that during the subsistence of this Agreement of Sale, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (who are Defendant Nos. PLAINTIFF'S CASE: 9.1. The facts that are relevant in the present case are that the Plaintiff/Appellant filed O.S. No. 96 of 2021 seeking Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 13.09.2013. He had stated in the Plaint that during the subsistence of this Agreement of Sale, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (who are Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) have sold and registered this property in favor of the Respondent No. 3 by way of Sale Deed, dated 29.03.2017 and that the said sale is not binding on the Plaintiff/Appellant on account of the subsistence of the earlier Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013. The Plaintiff/Appellant had stated in the Plaint that the total sale consideration under the Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013 is Rs. 49,50,000/- and that out of the said amount, the Plaintiff/Appellant had advanced an amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the date of execution of Agreement of Sale. He had stated that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to register the Agreement of Sale and receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/-. 9.2. It is further stated by the Plaintiff/Appellant that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract to get the Sale Deed registered by paying the remaining sale consideration (Rs. 12,50,000/-), Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are postponing the same on one pretext or the other. He further stated that the registered Sale Deed executed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favor of the Respondent No. 3, dated 29.03.2017 is a sham one. 9.3. The Plaintiff/Appellant further stated that the Respondent No. 2 got issued a Legal Notice, dated 16.06.2021 to the Plaintiff/Appellant alleging that the Plaintiff/Appellant obtained three blank signed papers and four blank signed cheques from Respondent No. 2 under threat and coercion. The Plaintiff/Appellant also got issued a Legal Notice, dated 01.09.2021 to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 demanding them to execute the Sale Deed in pursuance of the Suit Agreement of Sale and that the Defendants/Respondents managed the Postal Authority and got returned the said Notice. 9.4. It was, therefore, prayed that since Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Defendant Nos. 1 and 2/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 demanding them to execute the Sale Deed in pursuance of the Suit Agreement of Sale and that the Defendants/Respondents managed the Postal Authority and got returned the said Notice. 9.4. It was, therefore, prayed that since Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 failed to perform their part of the contract by executing the Registered Sale Deed, the Plaintiff/Appellant would suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not pass an Order of Injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants from alienating the property (I.A. No. 559 of 2021) and further, another Order of Injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants from making further construction in the Petition Schedule Property (I.A. No. 560 of 2021). DEFENDANTS'CASE: 10.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 filed their joint Counter Affidavits denying the material allegations of the Plaintiff/Appellant. At the outset, the Defendants/Respondents categorically denied the execution of Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013 and the receipt of any advance amount, much less a sum of Rs. 37,00,000/- from the Plaintiff/Appellant, and put the Plaintiff to strict proof of the same. The Defendants/Respondents further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 is doing real-estate business; that the Plaintiff/Appellant approached the Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 2 in the year 2017 with a proposal to purchase land for investment. Upon the mediation done by Respondent No. 2, the Plaintiff/Appellant has purchased an extent of 317 sq.yards. site in Rayanapadu Village for sale consideration of Rs. Upon the mediation done by Respondent No. 2, the Plaintiff/Appellant has purchased an extent of 317 sq.yards. site in Rayanapadu Village for sale consideration of Rs. 15,98,000/- under Registered Sale Deed, dated 23.10.2017; that however, due to market fluctuations, as the value of the property purchased by the Plaintiff/Appellant got diminished in the month of September, 2020, the Plaintiff/Appellant demanded the Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the above Sale Deed and for return of sale consideration; that as the Respondent No. 2 did not agree to this proposal, the Plaintiff/Appellant had placed this matter before political leaders and Anti Social Elements and under threat and coercion, the Plaintiff/Appellant obtained three blank papers and four blank cheques relating to the firm and also four blank papers from the Respondent No. 2 as security with an undertaking to purchase the property from the Plaintiff/Appellant within six months; that the Defendants/Respondents further stated that the Respondent No. 2/Defendant No. 2 is no way concerned with the property purchased by the Plaintiff/Appellant under Registered Sale Deed, dated 23.10.2017 and that he simply acted as mediator only; that as the Plaintiff/Appellant was threatening the Respondent No. 2 by making phone calls and threatening him with dire consequences, the Respondent No. 2 got issued Legal Notice, dated 16.06.2021 demanding the Plaintiff/Appellant to return blank papers containing his signatures and the cheques, and without giving reply to the said Notice, as a counter blast, the Plaintiff/Appellant got issued the Legal Notice, dated 01.09.2021 (after 75 days) to wrong postal address with false story that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 executed alleged Suit Agreement of Sale having received the advance sale consideration of Rs. 37,00,000/- on the same day i.e. on 13.09.2013. 10.2. It is further stated categorically by the Defendants/Respondents that the Plaintiff/Appellant is a Mason and he has no financial capacity to pay huge amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- in the year 2013. It is further submitted by the Respondents that Ex. R3 is an Aarogyasri Health Card issued by the Government in the name of the Plaintiff/Appellant under which the Plaintiff/Appellant is entitled to free medical treatment in the Hospital. The Respondents further submitted that this Aarogyasri Health Card is issued to the people whose annual income is below Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the Plaintiff/Appellant is in possession of Ex. The Respondents further submitted that this Aarogyasri Health Card is issued to the people whose annual income is below Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the Plaintiff/Appellant is in possession of Ex. R3/Aarogyasri Health Card shows the incapacity of the Plaintiff/Appellant in being able to negotiate the property for a sum of Rs. 49,50,000/- and paying advance amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- on 13.09.2013. 10.3. The Respondents have put the Plaintiff/Appellant to strict proof of the payment of advance amount also which is alleged to form part of total sale consideration. 11. Having considered these above rival contentions, the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada had dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications by separate Orders on 16.03.2022. 12. The learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada has given identical reasons for dismissing the two Interlocutory Applications, which are discussed hereunder: REASONING OF THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE: 13. Ex. P1 which is admittedly the unregistered non possessory Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013 (Ex. P1) does not have the stipulation of any time or date for getting the Registered Sale Deed after having allegedly parted with the consideration of Rs. 37,00,000/- out of Rs. 49,50,000/-; that the Plaintiff/Appellant did not mention his occupation in this Ex. P1; that as stated by the Defendants/Respondents, the Plaintiff/Appellant was a Mason and may not have the financial capacity to pay huge amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- in the year 2013; that Ex. R3 produced by the Respondents, which is the Aarogyasri Health Card issued by the Government, under which the Plaintiff/Appellant is entitled for free medical treatment in the Hospital also prima-facie probabilises the financial incapacity of the Plaintiff/Appellant and that the Plaintiff/Appellant did not dispute Ex. R3; that Ex. P7 Sale Deed, dated 05.07.2013 indicates that an amount of Rs. 39,25,000/- has been realised by selling property of the Plaintiff/Appellant, and receiving the entire amount in cash (Rs. 39,25,000/-) and that this transaction is being shown as the capacity of the Plaintiff/Appellant to enter into an Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013; that as Ex. P1 is of the year 2013 where the Plaintiff/Appellant has paid an advance of Rs. 37,00,000/- out of Rs. 49,50,000/- and that he had to pay only balance amount of Rs. 39,25,000/-) and that this transaction is being shown as the capacity of the Plaintiff/Appellant to enter into an Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013; that as Ex. P1 is of the year 2013 where the Plaintiff/Appellant has paid an advance of Rs. 37,00,000/- out of Rs. 49,50,000/- and that he had to pay only balance amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-; that the Plaintiff/Appellant has not given any reason as to why he has not obtained a Registered Sale Deed till September, 2021 after having parted with 3/4th of the amount of sale consideration and as to why he has kept quiet till September, 2021 (for a period of nearly eight years) without seeking execution of Sale Deed or approaching the Court for Specific Performance of Suit Agreement of Sale; that Ex. P4 namely the Legal Notice, dated 01.09.2021 is also issued deliberately to the wrong address to ensure return of Notice and as a counter blast to the Legal Notice issued by the Respondents, dated 16.06.2021. 14. The learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada held that the Plaintiff/Appellant had failed to, prima-facie, establish his financial capacity to purchase the suit schedule property for such a huge amount and failed to make out a prima-facie case to grant Interim Injunctions in his favour. The learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada further held that the genuineness of Ex. P1/unregistered non possessory Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013 and passing of consideration under it is to be decided during the course of full fledged trial only, but at this stage only prima-facie case is to be considered and under the circumstances, the Plaintiff/Appellant failed to establish the prima-facie case in his favour. 15. The learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada also held that the balance of convenience is also not in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant and it is more in favor of the Defendants/Respondents because the Respondent No. 2 already alienated a part of the schedule property by executing a Sale Deed in favor of the Respondent No. 3, and therefore, even on this count balance of convenience is not in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant. It is also held that the Plaintiff/Appellant has failed to prove any irreparable injury if the Court does not grant an Order of Injunction in his favour; and that, on the other hand, if Temporary Injunction is granted restraining the Respondents from making further construction in the schedule property, the Respondents will be put to irreparable loss and injury. 16. The Defendants/Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit before this Court. Along with it they have filed a Building Permit Order dated 09.01.2020, which indicates that the plan for constructing a building has been approved by the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority. They have also filed two photographs of the building under construction in the said approved site which is also the site under Agreement of Sale dated 13.09.2013. This building has stilt with five floors, as is clearly visible in the two photographs. 17. Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant advanced his arguments and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the Respondents advanced his arguments. 18. Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiff/Appellant has cited Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and others vs. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and others (1983) 4 SCC 31 and drawn the attention of this Court as regards the considerations that the Court has to take into account while considering Interlocutory Applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. At the outset it should be mentioned that this case pertains to a suit for Permanent Injunction wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down criteria for grant of Temporary Injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in a suit for grant of Permanent Injunction. The Hon'ble Apex Court had clearly stated that the Court may have to examine whether the party seeking the assistance of the Court was at any time in lawful possession of the property and if it is so established one could prima-facie ask the other side contesting the suit to show how the Plaintiffs were dispossessed. 19. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Appellant also cited Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey vs. Swami K. Narayandasji and others (2005) 10 SCC 11 . 19. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Appellant also cited Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey vs. Swami K. Narayandasji and others (2005) 10 SCC 11 . In this case, no doubt the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down criteria for dealing with cases under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., but this case pertains to Trusts and Trustees arising out of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, at Para No. 12 of the Judgment, stated that: '12. It is needless to note that while deciding the issue of injunction the courts have to consider the cumulative factors i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Definite findings have to be given on these aspects, on a prima facie basis. The impugned judgment of the High Court which forms the Subject-matter of appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 15386 of 2004 does not meet the requirements. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits and the acceptability of the various issues, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration'. 20. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above two cases would not help the Plaintiff/Appellant as the ratio therein does not relate to suits arising out of a Specific Relief Act, 1963 much less on the subject of specific performance. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the above referred cases, has laid down specific criteria to be considered by the Courts that are dealing with temporary reliefs, in suits for grant of Permanent Injunctions. Therefore, the ratio in the above two Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court do not help the Plaintiff/Appellant. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the above referred cases, has laid down specific criteria to be considered by the Courts that are dealing with temporary reliefs, in suits for grant of Permanent Injunctions. Therefore, the ratio in the above two Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court do not help the Plaintiff/Appellant. 21. The learned Senior Counsel has also cited another Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saketa Vaksana LLP and another vs. Kaukutla Sarala and others (2020) 11 SCC 773 , which is a suit for Specific Performance, but it is between the land owner and the developer wherein there is an admitted contract and exchange of partial consideration and under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while noting that there are serious disputed questions of fact involved in the matter as regards possession of the suit property and whether it has been handed over to the developer, the Hon'ble Apex Court thought it fit to affirm the orders of the Division Bench vacating the Injunction Order passed in favor of the developer. Whereas, in the instant case there is a complete denial on the part of the Defendants/Respondents as regards execution of the Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013 as well as passing of any partial consideration of sale, much less the issue of possession, as admittedly it is a non-possessory Agreement of Sale. 22. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the Defendants/Respondents has cited the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP Limited and another (2020) 5 SCC 410 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had considered and laid down the conditions for grant of Temporary Injunction or otherwise under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale. The Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that the relief under Specific Relief Act for specific performance of contract of sale is itself a discretionary relief, and therefore, the criteria for considering the grant of temporary relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. falls on a different footing in suits for specific performance as compared to temporary reliefs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. in other suits. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the Defendants/Respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to para No. 15 of the above Judgment. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the Defendants/Respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to para No. 15 of the above Judgment. It is worth extracting the same which is as under: '15. Chapter VII, Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides for grant of preventive relief. Section 37 provides that temporary injunction in a suit shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. The grant of relief in a suit for specific performance is itself a discretionary remedy. A plaintiff seeking temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance will therefore have to establish a strong prima facie case on basis of undisputed facts. The conduct of the plaintiff will also be a very relevant consideration for purposes of injunction. The discretion at this stage has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily'. 23. The attention of the Court was also drawn to Para No. 19 which is also reproduced as under: '19. In a matter concerning grant of injunction, apart from the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, the conduct of the party seeking the equitable relief of injunction is also very essential to be considered as observed in Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi ( (2000) 6 SCC 420 ) holding as follows: (SCC p. 424, para 6) '6. The first ground which the High Court in Ramdasi Devi vs. Motilal Jain took note of is the delay in filing the suit. It may be apt to bear in mind the following aspects of delay which are relevant in a case of specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property: (i) delay running beyond the period prescribed under the Limitation Act; (ii) delay in cases where though the suit is within the period of limitation, yet; (a) due to delay the third parties have acquired rights in the subject-matter of the suit; (b) in the facts and circumstances of the case, delay may give rise to plea of waiver or otherwise it will be inequitable to grant a discretionary relief.'' 24. In the above quoted Paragraph No. 19 the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the ratio as laid down in Para No. 6 in Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi ( (2000) 6 SCC 420 ), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with two instances of delay in cases where the suit is within the limitation period. In para No. 21 of the Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also stated that when the existence or otherwise of the contract between the parties is itself a matter of trial to be decided on the basis of the evidence that may be lead, the Interim Injunction may not be granted. 25. In the present case, no single averment in the plaint has been admitted by the Defendants/Respondents. Execution of Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013 has not been admitted. The receipt of advance amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- out of Rs. 49,50,000/- has not been admitted, nor is the Plaintiff/Appellant is able to prima-facie establish even by filing a scrap of paper that the Defendants/Respondents have in fact received this advance amount that constitutes 3/4th of the total amount of sale consideration. The agreement dated 13.09.2013 which is pitched by the Plaintiff/Appellant itself indicates that it is a non possessory agreement of sale. ANOTHER GLARING FACT AS NOTICED BY THIS COURT: 26. This Court has also noticed that a Sale Deed dated 05.07.2013 (Ex. P7) is pitched by the Plaintiff/Appellant in order to show his ability to pay the advance amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- when he entered into Agreement of Sale dated 13.09.2013. This Sale Deed, dated 05.07.2013 is between two joint vendors (namely Smt. Sagi Dhanalakshmi and Smt. Gajula Rajyalakshmi) and the vendee is one Sri Koya Ramakrishna Satyavara Prasad. It is indicated in the Sale Deed that Smt. Sagi Dhanalakshmi, who is the daughter of Sri Sagi Koteswara Rao (Plaintiff/Appellant herein), owns about Ac. 0-82 cents of land and Smt. Gajula Rajyalakshmi owns about Ac. 0-75 cents of land (Total extent being Ac. 0-82 cents + Ac. 0-75 cents = Ac. 1.57 cents) and they have jointly (under single Sale Deed, dated 05.07.2013-Ex. P7) sold this total extent of land for a total consideration of Rs. 39,25,000/-. 27. This transaction indicates that the sale consideration which the joint vendors have received i.e. an amount of Rs. 39,25,000/- will have to be proportionately shared between Smt. Gajula Rajya Lakshmi and Smt. Sagi Dhana Lakshmi. P7) sold this total extent of land for a total consideration of Rs. 39,25,000/-. 27. This transaction indicates that the sale consideration which the joint vendors have received i.e. an amount of Rs. 39,25,000/- will have to be proportionately shared between Smt. Gajula Rajya Lakshmi and Smt. Sagi Dhana Lakshmi. Smt. Sagi Dhana Lakshmi is the daughter of present Plaintiff/Appellant and she would be entitled to the proportionate share (approximately about Rs. 20,50,000/-) in the sale consideration of Rs. 39,25,000/-. Therefore, prima-facie even assuming this total amount being available to the Plaintiff/Appellant for the purpose of making advance payment to the Defendants/Respondents, still, that ipso facto, is not sufficient to conclude passing of advance amount from plaintiff to defendant, particularly in the light of strong denial, unless plaintiff adduces proof showing passing of consideration by an acceptable mode like Cheque/Demand Draft/RTGS etc., for, the 1st Defendant being a registered firm, cannot be expected to accept such a huge amount in cash. The Plaintiff, in our view, failed to establish this crucial fact convincingly. 28. Learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada has dealt with all these facts thoroughly before applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as regards grant or otherwise of Temporary Injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. in a case of specific performance and has held that the Plaintiff/Appellant is not entitled for any indulgence at this stage. 29. The learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada is also conscious, as is noted in the order, that any observation may cause prejudice to the Plaintiff or Defendants during trial and that the observations made by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada are only limited to the pre-trial stage and they would not have any bearing in disposal of the main suit for specific performance. 30. In view of the discussion herein above, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the findings given by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in his Order dated 16.03.2022 in I.A. No. 559 of 2021 and I.A. No. 560 of 2021 in O.S. No. 96 of 2021. 31. Accordingly, the C.M.A. Nos. 127 & 166 of 2022 are dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the C.M.A. Nos. 127 & 166 of 2022 are dismissed. However, we must hasten to add that any activities of the Respondents/Defendants in respect of suit property shall be subject to result of the suit and in the event of their failing in the suit, they cannot pray for equities. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, also stand closed in terms of this Order.