T PARAMESHWARI Vs. S S INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are against an order in Application No. 5064 of 1990 in C.S. No. 963 of 1990. The learned trial judge has granted the prayer in the application and accordingly made an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellants, their men, agents or any other person acting on their behalf or claiming under or through them from dealing with the suit property in any manner either by sale, mortgage, lease or by putting up superstructures on the suit land or otherwise using it pending disposal of the suit. He has also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) C.S. No. 963 of 1990 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 12.10.1986. According to the plaintiff respondents 1 to 5 agreed to sell their property of an extent of 70 acres and 70 cents at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre in S. Nos. 103/1 and 103/3 in Shortrium village of Kanathur Reddikuppam, Tiruporur, the sale being subject to obtaining a sanction from Court as the interest of a lunatic was involved in the transaction. According to the plaintiff, the land was required for construction of a beach resort. Competitor appellant in O.S.A. No. 123 of 1991 (6th respondent in the application No. 5064/90), however, induced the respondents 1 to 4 in the application appellants in O.S.A. 122 of 1991 to enter into a fresh agreement. Respondents 1 to 5 committed breach of the agreement by not coming forward to sell the property to the plaintiff although they had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in advance and that the plaintiff-respondent had taken all necessary steps to construct a building for beach resort. Alleging that respondents 1 to 5 were trying to alienate the property at the behest of the 6th respondent, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit and accordingly applied for an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The learned single Judge issued an ex parte order of interim injunction on 10.10.1990 and has made it absolute under the impugned order.

(3.) SPEAKING on the role that these provisions will play in dealing with a prayer for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 2 C.P.C., a Bench of the Patna High Court in Kaiyanpur Lime Works v. State of Bihar AIR 1951 Patna 226 has stated: