RAVINDER Vs. VIRENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial court vide the impugned order dated 31.1.2007 has refused to grant temporary injunction on an application moved by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and has permitted the defendants'/respondents' application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance as well as for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from dispossessing him from the suit land. As a matter of fact, the parties have entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 22.10.1996. The appellant/plaintiff was the vendee. The relevant stipulations in the Agreement to Sell are reproduced as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the respondents have failed to apply and obtain NOC, ITC, etc. or any other sale permission required under the law for the sale of the said land in his favour. He further submitted that the appellant is still willing and ready to perform his part of contract. He also pointed out that the appellant has already entered into an agreement to sell with the other party and consequently, the balance of convenience lies in his favour. He has also drawn my attention towards the order passed by this Court, while it was pending here and before it was transferred to the learned District Judge due to enhancement of jurisdictional value, to prove that the appellant is in possession of the suit property. The relevant portion of the said order dated 24.07.2001 is reproduced as follows: