JORAWAR SINGH Vs. RAJESH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Sh. Jorawar Singh assails the common order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. Nos. 2122/2007, 2906/2008 and 11879/2008 in CS(OS) No. 1565/2006 filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of these applications preferred by respondent No. 1 primarily under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC alleging disobedience of the orders of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid suit.

(2.) THE factual background may first be stated. A suit under Order XXXVII CPC was preferred by respondent No. 1 on 08.08.2006 against the sole defendant in the suit, who is respondent No. 2. The suit was based on a Promissory Note that the plaintiff claims had been executed, in the sum of Rs.1 Crore 50 Lakhs. The case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein was that the defendant/respondent No. 2 herein had undertaken to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1 Crore 50 Lakhs within two years with the further assurance that he would hand over possession of the property of M/s Laxmi Cable Company situated at No.A-6/1, Jhilmil Industrial Area, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in the event of default. Along with the suit, respondent No. 1 moved I.A. No. 8892/2006 to seek an interim injunction. This application was taken up on 17.08.2006 by the Court and an injunction order was passed restraining the defendant from selling, alienating, transferring or parting with the property bearing No.A-6/1, Jhilmil Industrial Area, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi, till further orders. The said interim order of injunction was served on the defendant in the suit on 18.08.2006.

(3.) APPARENTLY, the agreement to sell in favour of respondent No.6 was a collusive exercise and was a sham transaction. The agreement to sell recorded that vacant physical possession of the property had been delivered to the vendee at the time of execution of the agreement and that the vendee confirms having taken possession thereof when, factually, this was not the correct position as demonstrated by the pleadings of the parties before the Court.