Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 696 (RAJ)

Ram Narayan v. Het Ram

2013-04-05

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, Distt. Sri Gangangar in Civil Misc. Case No. 2/2006, whereby the application for temporary injunction preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 3 has been allowed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance while contending that the appellants No.1 and 2 executed the agreement dated 19.02.2000, whereby the land situated at Chak LSM of Tehsil Anoopgarh in Murabba No. 297/404 bearing quila No. 1225 measuring 25 Bighas was agreed to be sold to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 7,10,000/-. 3. It has been contended that on 19.02.2000, the possession of the land was handed over to the respondent 2 plaintiff after receiving Rs. 2,00,000/- and thereafter up to 25.04.2000, the respondent-plaintiffs have paid Rs. 7,05,000/- to appellants No. 1 and 2 and it was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 5000/- would be paid at the time of registration of the documents. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that despite insistence, the appellants No.1 and 2 have failed to get the documents registered and ultimately on 25.12.2005, the appellants No.1 and 2 refused to get the documents registered. Therefore, the suit for specific performance along with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC was filed by the respondents No.1 and 3. The appellants have filed reply to the application for temporary injunction and disputed the claim of the respondents No.1 to 3. 4. The learned lower court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application for temporary injunction preferred on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question. 5. 4. The learned lower court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application for temporary injunction preferred on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned court below has grossly erred in allowing the application preferred on behalf of the respondents under Order 39 Rule 12 CPC while not taking into consideration that the appellants preferred a revenue suit under section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for ejectment of the respondents No.1 to 5, and the said revenue suit was decreed in favour of the appellants. Therefore, in such circumstances, the order dated 13.05.2010 is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have produced several documents before the learned trial court but the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the said documents and has wrongly passed the impugned order dated 13.05.2010. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 has supported the impugned order. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for rival parties and has perused the impugned order dated 13.05.2010. 8. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the rival contentions of the parties as well as the documents produced by the parties. The learned trial court has come to the conclusion that in view of the signatures of the appellants on the agreement to sale dated 19.2.2000 and in view of the fact that the appellants have received a sum of Rs. 7,05,000/-, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the respondents. The learned trial court has also taken into consideration that as per the recital in the document dated 19.02.2000, the possession of the land in question had also been handed over to the respondents and till date they are in possession, therefore, balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs and if at this stage, the parties are not restrained from maintaining the status quo in respect of the land in dispute, then the respondent-plaintiffs may suffer irreparable loss. 9. 9. So far the order passed by the revenue court, at the instance of the appellants, is concerned, the trial court also considered the same and found that the same was passed exparte against the respondents and the respondents had claimed that they had not been served with the notices in respect of the said proceedings. 10. After careful consideration of the impugned order and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is satisfied that the learned Additional District Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 13.05.2010 and, therefore, no interference is called for.Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******