RAJIV MAHESHKUMAR MEHTA Vs. MAHENDRASINH MADARSANG VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal from order is to the order dated 28.2.2011 passed by learned 7th Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), passed below temporary injunction application, Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.19 of 2011. The appellant herein is the original plaintiff and the respondent herein are the original defendants in the suit and, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondents shall be herein after referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants respectively.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the above -referred suit, seeking various reliefs, namely, specific performance of agreement for sale of a land bearing block No.592, admeasuring 10528 sq.yrds., executed on 1.9.2009 by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff or in the alternatively to recover the amount of damages with running interest @ 18% p.a. and also prayed for the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating the suit land to any 3rd party. In the suit, the plaintiff filed an application at Exh.5 seeking temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from transferring or otherwise alienating the suit land to any 3 rd party or to create any interest to any 3 rd party in the suit land till the pendency and final disposal of the suit. At the time when the suit was filed, the trial Court vide initial order dated 4.2.2010 issued show cause notices to the defendants and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the material placed on record before the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 28.2.2011, the trial Court dismissed said application, Exh.5 and, hence, the plaintiff preferred this appeal from order.

(3.) MR .Suresh N.Shelat, learned senior counsel with Mr.ND Gohil, learned advocate for the respondents ­ defendants supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court and submitted that pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2011, passed in this appeal, original R & P of S.C.S. No.19 of 2011 came to be called for from the trial Court and considering the alleged agreement for sale, allegedly executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, which is available in the original record of the suit, it can safely be said that as a proposed purchase, though the name of Rajiv Maheshkumar Mehta is shown, no particulars are given about his age, address etc. It is further submitted that though in the document as proposed purchasers, the name of Mr.Rajiv Mehta is shown as well as it is mentioned that there are unnamed other purchasers. It is further submitted that considering the tenor and texture of the recitals made in the document, even at this stage, it can definitely be said that the plaintiff misused the signatures of the defendants on a blank papers. No description of the suit land is mentioned in the document except its block number. It is, therefore, submitted that the trial Court did not erred in prima -facie discarding the said agreement at this stage.