Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2282 (RAJ)

Chandra Prakash v. Brij Behari Gupta

2006-07-20

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The appellant has challenged the order dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jhalawar, whereby, while disposing of the application for temporary injunction, it has been ordered that the plaintiff -respondent will submit a solvent security of only Rs. 50,000/-. According to the appellant, the said order does not comply with the Judgment of this Court dated 04.02.2005, whereby directions were issued to the trial Court to determine the value of the property and to seek a solvent security on the basis thereof . 2. The Brief facts of the case are that on 111.2002 the respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the appellant. According to the respondent he and the appellant had entered into an oral agreement for sale of 39 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land situated in village Khandiya, Tehsil Jhalara Patan, District Jhalawar. The price agreed upon was Rs. 10 lacs. The appellant had assured the respondent that as soon as the case pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is over, the sale-deed shall be drawn up and registered. At the time of the oral agreement he had sought 50% price of the land for which the defendant had handed over an undated cheque of Rs. 5 lacs. Initially the appellant promised the respondent that he will encash the cheque only after the case is decided by the SDM. However, subsequently, without informing the respondent, the appellant submitted the cheque for encashment. The moment, the respondent came to know about the surreptitious manner in which the appellant had submitted the cheque, he informed the Bank concerned not to honour the cheque and to stop the payment. Since the cheque bounced, the appellant instituted a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. However, subsequently the said case was withdrawn by the appellant himself . The respondent further claimed that he came to know that the case before the SDM was decided on 29.07.2001 and the land in dispute was handed over to the appellant. Therefore, he requested the appellant to take the remaining amount and to get the sale-deed registered but the appellant did not pay any heed to the respondents pleas. The respondent further claimed in his plaint that he is willing to implement his part of the contract, but the defendant should be directed to him. Therefore, he requested the appellant to take the remaining amount and to get the sale-deed registered but the appellant did not pay any heed to the respondents pleas. The respondent further claimed in his plaint that he is willing to implement his part of the contract, but the defendant should be directed to him. Alongwith the suit the respondent also filed an application for temporary injunction. 3. In the written statement, filed by the appellant, he denied all the allegations made by the respondent. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 27.07.2004, the learned trial Judge issued a temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and against the appellant wherein he restrained the appellant from transferring the disputed land in favour of any other person during the pendency of suit for specific performance of the contract. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before this Court which was disposed of vide Judgment dated 04.02.2005. While disposing of the said appeal this Court was pleased to direct that "the respondent to furnish the solvent security before the learned trial Court of an amount to the extent that may be determined by the trial Court based on the material which may be placed before the Court by both the parties to ensure that in the event the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, the appellant may be adequately compensated." Consequently, the appellant submitted an application to the effect that the disputed land was worth Rs. 1 crore. In order to substantiate his claim he submitted certain documents. However, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 31.03.2006, the learned Court directed the respondent to submit a solvent security of only Rs. 50,000/-in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 04.02.2005. Since the appellant is aggrieved by the said order, he has filed the present appeal before us. 4. Mr. K.K. Mehrishi Senior Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has argued that sufficient evidence was produced by the appellant to prove that the value of the land in dispute was Rs. 1 crore. However, without appreciating the evidence, the learned Judge has asked for a solvent security of merely Rs. 50,000/-. The said amount is too meagre considering the total value of the land in dispute. .5. On the other hand, Mr. 1 crore. However, without appreciating the evidence, the learned Judge has asked for a solvent security of merely Rs. 50,000/-. The said amount is too meagre considering the total value of the land in dispute. .5. On the other hand, Mr. Davendra Raghav, the learned Counsel for the respondent, relied upon Section 95 of CPC to support the impugned order. 6. We have heard both the learned Counsels and have perused the impugned order. 7. Section 95 of CPC reads as under:-"Compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient grounds. (1) Where, in any suit in which an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction granted under the last proceeding section,- .(a) It appears to the Court that such arrest, attachment or injunction was applied for on insufficient grounds, or .(b) the suit of the plaintiff fails and it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable or probable ground for instituting the same. the defendant may apply to the Court, and the Court may, upon such application, award against the plaintiff by its order such amount, not exceeding fifty thousand rupees, as it deems a reasonable compensation to the defendant for the expense or injury (including injury to reputation) caused to him. Provided that a Court shall not award, under this Section, an amount exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction. (2) An order determining any such application shall bar any suit for compensation in respect of such arrest, attachment or injunction." 8. A bare perusal of this Section would clearly reveal that in case an injunction is applied for on insufficient grounds, the Court can impose an award of only Rs. 50,000/-as a reasonable compensation to the defendant. In the instant case also the learned Judge has asked for solvent security of only Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the impugned order is in consonance with Section 95 of CPC. 9. Another aspect of the mater is that although it is essential to protect the interest of the appellant, it is equally pertinent that the plaintiff should not be so burdened by imposition of a cost so as to discourage people from approaching the Court of law. The right to approach the Court of law is a fundamental right emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a fundamental right cannot be curtailed by imposition of an unreasonable amount on a person. The right to approach the Court of law is a fundamental right emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a fundamental right cannot be curtailed by imposition of an unreasonable amount on a person. Undoubtedly frivolous litigation has to be discouraged but a balance has to be struck to foster and protect genuine litigation. The learned Judge by directing the submission of a solvent security of only Rs. 50,000/-has struck the right balance between the rights of the plaintiff to approach the Court and the right of the defendant to be protected from frivolous litigation. Hence the impugned order is absolutely legal and valid. 10. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.