SUNIL D CHEDDA Vs. SURESHBANSILALSETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides. The Special Leave Petition is treated as one preferred against the order of the Division Bench dated 25th October, 1991, as well as the subsequent order dated 31 st October, 1991, of the single judge. Special leave granted and the appeal is heard and disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Appellant is the plaintiff in a pending suit before the High Court for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell in which he sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent-vendor from alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit property during the pendency of the suit. An order dated 10th September, 1991, was granted by the learned single Judge in appellant's favour on condition that appellant do furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 40 lakhs (Rupees Forty lakhs only) within a period of six weeks. It would appear that at an earlier stage, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs in Court. Appellant, however, did not comply with the terms of the order of the learned single Judge; but carried that order up in appeal before the Division Bench which by its order dated 28th October, 1991, dismissed the appeal observing:

(3.) The upshot of it all is that the appellant in order that he be entitled to the discretionary, interlocutory relief should either have agreed to continue the deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs or furnish a bank guarantee for the like sum in which event he would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. Since he did not, apparently, signify his consent to do either of the things, the Division Bench dismissed his appeal. The single Judge's conditional order also lapsed as appellant did not comply with its terms.