DEEPAK KUMAR B. Vs. SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for review petitioner.

(2.) This Court earlier disposed M.F.A.No.8523/2023 wherein challenge was made granting of relief of temporary injunction invoking provision under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC restraining defendants, their agents, servants or any persons acting on behalf of the defendants are restrained from alienating the suit schedule property either by their own acts or through the acts of such of those persons instructed by the defendants to anyone pending disposal of the suit. This order was modified by this Court directing the defendants to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,00,000.00 within one month from the date of order and while passing such order, this review petitioner who is the plaintiff No.2 before the Trial Court seeking the relief of specific performance was not heard and only the plaintiff No.1 who made an application before the Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was heard and this Court modified the order. Hence, the present review petition is filed.

(3.) The counsel appearing for the review petitioner would vehemently contend that this Court having heard the matter in his absence, set-aside the order of the Trial Court in granting the relief of the temporary injunction and modified the order of the Trial Court. The counsel would vehemently contend that this Court while disposing the M.F.A.No.8523/2023, no notice was given to this review petitioner who is the 2ndplaintiff in the said suit and contend that the petitioner has invested substantial amount of money towards the advance payment and order passed by this Court is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The review petitioner has every right to defend the order of the Trial Court which was challenged before this Court and since it was not notified to this review petitioner, an order was passed which was modified led to great injustice to the review petitioner. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there are several disputes which have to be cleared before the execution of sale deed actually if it is executed. The petitioner has always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and already paid Rs.3,00,00,000.00 as advance sale consideration and when the investment was made by the review petitioner and also when the sale agreement is in favour of both the 1stplaintiff as well as this review petitioner/2ndplaintiff and having invested substantial amount, he is entitled for due execution of sale deed. The order passed by this Court in his absence, it affects his right and the same causes prejudice to his right. When the petitioner is a stake holder in the properties in question and he is having agreement in his favour along with co-agreement holder and the valuable right of this petitioner was lost in not depending the order passed by the Trial Court while hearing this matter. When the valuable right has been affected while passing such an order and the same causes prejudice to the review petitioner and hence, it requires interference.