A N SHIVAPRASAD Vs. T VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. F. A. No. 4055/2000 is directed against the order dated 23. 9. 2000 in O. S. No. 148/99 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge, Shimoga dismissing IA No. II.

(2.) M. F. A. No. 4484/2000 is again filed challenging the order dated 23. 9. 2000 passed in O. S. No. 148/99 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge, Shimoga on IA No. I filed by the petitioner and IA. No. VVV filed by the respondent for vacating temporary injunction. Both the appeals can be disposed of by a common order since the facts and the grounds are common in both these cases.

(3.) THE facts in brief are as under: both the appeals are filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff A. N. Shivaprasad filed a suit in O. S. No. 148/99. His case is that the defendant respondnet on 8. 3. 1998 executed a sale agreement for sale of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/- out of which the respondent defendant received a sum of Rs. 4,62,800/- as advance on different dates. The balance was agreed to be paid on the date of registration of the sale. The defendant did not keep up promise and went on postponing the date of registration. A legal notice was issued. A reply was received. Thereafter, the present suit was filed. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant denied having executed an agreement and he took up a contention of fraud and misrepresentation in the case on hand. Initially injunction was granted. Thereafter, an IA was filed for vacating the same. IA-I was filed by the plaintiff seeking for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit schedule properties. IA-III was filed seeking for police protection. IA-IV was filed by the defendant seeking to vacate the injunction granted in terms of IA-II. IA-V is filed by the defendant seeking an order to vacate an ex-parte injunction. The learned Judge, after hearing the parties has chosen to dismiss the IAs I to III filed by the plaintiff and allowed IAs IV and V filed by the defendant. The learned Judge vacated the injunction. Learned Judge in the order ordered impounding of the sale agreement dated 8. 3. 1998. He further ordered registration of miscellaneous case against the plaintiff. This order is challenged in these two appeals. Records are called for and the records are made available.