Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1626 (RAJ)

DALPAT RAM v. MANGAL SINGH

2017-07-24

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.05.2016 passed by District Judge, Sirohi, whereby, the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed and the appellant has been restrained from dealing with the suit property. 2. The suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent seeking specific performance of agreement dated 25.02.2014. The appellant filed written statement and alleged that the document in question was forged and fabricated and denied the averments made in the plaint. Along with the suit, an application seeking temporary injunction was filed. 3. The trial court after hearing the parties observed that the appellant has failed to prima facie prove that the document in question was forged and came to the conclusion that there was prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and granted injunction. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error in making observations on the merit of the dispute, inasmuch as, the defence raised by the appellant has been negated on merits, which is not permissible in law. It is submitted that the observations made by the trial court would influence the final outcome of the suit, which has to be decided based on the evidence to be led by the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order impugned. It was submitted that from the material available on record, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the submissions made by the appellant, regarding validity of the document, were baseless and, therefore, the trial court was justified in making the observations in its order. It is submitted that once a suit has been filed seeking specific performance and a prima facie case is made out, the trial court was justified in granting injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. Though normally a Court while considering the prima facie case is required to examine the defence sought to be raised by the defendant, however, in the present case, the trial court has overstepped and at the stage of consideration of application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, based on the bona fides of the parties, has made observations regarding the merits of the document as well as the plea raised by the appellant, which was wholly unnecessary for the purpose of arriving at a finding regarding availability of prima facie case in favour of the respondent. The said observations made by the trial court cannot be sustained. 7. However, looking to the nature of the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff as well as the injunction granted by the trial court, no interference is called for in the order passed by the trial court granting injunction. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of with the directions that the findings/observations made by the trial court while deciding the issue of prima facie case in the order shall not affect the final outcome of the suit and the trial court would decide the suit based on the evidence available on record/which may come on record.