Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2907 (RAJ)

Mitthanlal v. Jagatram

2022-12-08

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
ORDER 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellantplaintiff challenging the order dated 02nd March, 2020, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant - Mr.Vimal Choudhary submitted that the Court below has erroneously recorded its finding in respect of prima facie case not to be proved in favour of the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that agreement to sale was executed by the respondents-defendants, namely, Jagatram and Phoolsingh and only on account of description of the land, as whether the same was an agriculture piece of land or reflecting the residential plots, could not have been resulted into not considering the prima facie case in favour of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the agreement to sale was duly admitted by the respondents-defendants, as they had received substantial amount in pursuance of the terms of agreement entered between the parties and if the fact of accepting money by the defendants was proved, the same should not have resulted into not finding a prima facie case in favour of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents-defendants had admitted before the Court below that the agreement between the parties had taken place in respect of an agriculture land and in view of such admission, the Court below ought to have passed injunction against the respondents-defendants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Court below has wrongly recorded a finding that only one of the defendants - Jagatram had signed the agreement and the other defendant - Phoolsingh had not signed the said agreement. 7. Learned counsel submitted that burden of proving the agreement to sale was to be considered by the Court below only after proper evidence was to be led and for considering the prima facie case, even if agreement to sale had signature of one of the defendants, the relief of temporary injunction could not have been refused. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants - Mr.Sudhir Yadav submitted that the appellant-plaintiff has never been interested in executing the sale deed, as was agreed between the parties. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants - Mr.Sudhir Yadav submitted that the appellant-plaintiff has never been interested in executing the sale deed, as was agreed between the parties. 9. Learned counsel submitted that this Court also, on earlier occasion, had asked learned counsel for the appellant to seek instructions as how much time was required by them to execute the registered sale deed, as the respondents were always prepared to get the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant and the agreed sum was required to be paid. 10. Learned counsel submitted that since the appellant did not have sufficient funds and as such, he never agreed for execution of sale deed and there is a dishonest move on his part to keep the property disputed and as such, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant did not have any prima facie case in his favour. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. This Court finds that the Court below has recorded a prima facie finding that agreement between the parties had been executed and there was a dispute in respect of description of the property in the agreement to sale as whether the same property was an agriculture piece of land or the same was to be used by having plots and as such, nature of the land and its use has been the main basis, on which, the Court below has refused to grant any injunction in the matter. 13. This Court further finds that the agreement, which was executed between the parties also makes a reference of certain amount paid by the appellant and receipt of amount by the defendants was not disputed. 14. This Court finds that the issue with regard to execution of registered sale deed in pursuance of the agreement is said to have been executed between the parties, can be resolved and if the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance and the defendants are ready to execute the sale deed, necessary consequences are required to follow. 15. 14. This Court finds that the issue with regard to execution of registered sale deed in pursuance of the agreement is said to have been executed between the parties, can be resolved and if the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance and the defendants are ready to execute the sale deed, necessary consequences are required to follow. 15. This Court finds that dispute between the parties can be resolved as both the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement to sale and as such, leaned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that the parties can always come forward and resolve the dispute by complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement to sale. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants, on instructions from his clients, submitted that the respondents are always willing to perform their part and a time-bound direction may be given by this Court. 17. This Court finds that dispute, between the parties, can be resolved and both the parties can make an application before the Court below to get the agreement to sale executed on the terms and conditions, which have already agreed between them and description/nature of the land should not have any impact in respect of such endeavour of resolving the dispute. 18. This Court directs the Court below to consider the prayer, if made by the parties, to resolve the dispute in a reasonable time and as such, if such application is filed, the Court below can dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of filing of the application. 19. It is made clear that till the matter is resolved, no third party rights will be created by any of the parties. 20. With the aforesaid, the present miscellaneous appeal is disposed of.