Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 387 (MP)

Dinesh Kushwah v. G. C. Dairy India

2016-05-09

ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. The present appeal under Order XLIII rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 7.5.2015 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No.1-A/2015 whereby the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement to sale dated 30.5.2014. According to the plaintiffs, they have paid Rs.1,45,00,000/- in respect of agriculture land, particulars of which are contained in the plaint. Further submission of the appellants/plaintiffs is that respondent No.1 is not performing its part of contract as per the agreement to sale, therefore, filed the instant suit for specific performance of contract. 3. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking injunction. 4. Respondent No.1 has filed reply and contested the claim of the appellants on the ground that the plaintiffs have forged the document (agreement to sale dated 30.5.2014) for which a criminal case has been registered for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against the plaintiffs and respondent No.1 has never executed any agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiffs. According to respondent No.1, the suit has been filed on the forged documents and frivolous grounds and liable to be dismissed. Further submission of respondent No.1 is that at the relevant time, the Director Rajendra Singh was not present in Gwalior and was in Vidisha, therefore, it was impossible for respondent No.1 to sign on such fateful day. Thus, respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The plaintiffs/appellants have preferred a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement to sale dated 30.5.2014. The existence of such agreement has been vehemently denied by respondent No.1. According to respondent No.1 the said agreement has never been signed or executed by respondent No.1 and police report has been made because of misconduct/criminal conduct of the appellants. Learned Court below has found that no prima facie case is made out to grant injunction to the plaintiffs. Similarly, the balance of convenience is also not in favour of plaintiffs. According to respondent No.1 the said agreement has never been signed or executed by respondent No.1 and police report has been made because of misconduct/criminal conduct of the appellants. Learned Court below has found that no prima facie case is made out to grant injunction to the plaintiffs. Similarly, the balance of convenience is also not in favour of plaintiffs. Agreement to sale itself is under doubt and existence of which is denied by respondent No.1. No irreparable loss would also be caused to the plaintiffs in the present case. At this stage, conduct and documents of the plaintiff do not evoke enough confidence to establish plea of prima facie case. The trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order declining the application filed under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of CPC of the plaintiffs. No illegality has been caused thus, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of substance. However, it is made clear that the trial Court shall make every possible endeavour to conclude the case within six months from today and it is expected from the parties that they will cooperate in the proceeding and would not seek adjournment on flimsy pretext. R. K. Soni for appellants; J. P. Mishra for respondent No.1; Smt. Sangeeta Pachori, Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.