ARVINDBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL Vs. KRISHNAKANT J SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this appeal from Order, the appellants have challenged the order passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda, below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.249/2003 by which the learned Judge has partly allowed interim injunction application filed by respondent - original plaintiff by granting order of status-quo in connection with one of the disputed lands being Survey No. 384.

(2.) The respondent herein is the original plaintiff of aforesaid suit. Said suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the suit agreement as well as for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is doing building construction and land development business in the city of Baroda and that defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff for the purpose of developing his land, which is described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants have agreed to give development contract to the plaintiff for developing the lands in question being Survey Nos. 380, 382, 388/1/A, 388 (3), 384 and 370. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff and defendants agreed to form a partnership for the purpose of developing said lands and it was agreed that the plaintiff and defendants will have 50% share respectively in the profit or loss of the business and expenditure for such development was to be borne by the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the parties have orally agreed about certain conditions on 14-9-1999 and on that basis defendants no.1 and 2 also executed writing on 14-9-1999. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had paid Rs.1 Lac towards sell consideration to defendants and the defendants are bound to act as per the development agreement. Thereafter, they started developing Survey No. 384 and the scheme for such development was also inaugurated and at that time, it was agreed to develop simultaneously Survey No. 380 (1) A, which is in final plot no. 91 as well as revenue Survey No. 388 (3) in Final Plot No.93. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had also incurred certain expenditure in connection with preparing plans and getting the same approved from the Corporation. At that time, someone had objected about opening of approach road for which the plaintiff had agreed to settle the dispute with said person but defendant did not gave cooperation for settling said issue and instead filed a Civil Suit No.212/2001 against aforesaid person and said objector also filed Civil Suit No.224/2001 before Civil Court at Vadodara. It is also averred in the plaint that subsequently, the defendants tried to back out from the agreement and informed the plaintiff that they are not willing to get said land developed with the help of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was shocked by aforesaid conduct of the defendants and ultimately, it was agreed to pay Rs. 90 Lacs to plaintiff towards his initial investment as well as towards expenditure, which he has incurred and on receiving such amount, the plaintiff had agreed to cancel the relevant agreement and to hand over all necessary papers to defendants. It is also the case of plaintiff that defendants gave him post dated cheque on 9-4-2003 but on presentation said cheque bounced back. Therefore, aforesaid suit is filed by the plaintiff for getting a decree for specific performance in connection with property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint being Survey No. 380, 382, 388 (1) A, 388 (3), 384 and 370 and directing defendants to execute the sale deed in connection with said property. It is alternatively prayed that a decree for Rs.l Crore and 50 Lacs may be passed towards damages against the defendants and the plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction in connection with aforesaid property.

(3.) Aforesaid suit is resisted by defendants on various grounds. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the defendants had agreed to develop the land bearing Survey No. 384 and an agreement was executed on 14-9-1999 in that behalf, however, no agreement had taken place regarding rest of the lands. It is also stated by the defendants that the plaintiff has committed forgery by inserting other survey numbers in the said agreement. It is the say of the defendants that the plaintiff has created bogus documents behind the back of the defendants. The defendants also denied that they had issued a cheque for Rs.90 Lacs. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has filed the suit only in order to extort money from the defendants. It is the say of the defendants that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and, therefore, no relief can be given to such plaintiff. On this and other grounds, suit is resisted by the defendants.