MANAS INDIA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Vs. MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. L.P.Mishra, Advocate assisted by Sri Deepanshu Dass, learned counsels appearing for the appellant and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sandeep Srivastava and Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsels appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 4.

(2.) Instant First Appeal From Order has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case set forth by the appellant is that an unregistered agreement for sale was executed on 1/7/2018, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the appeal with one Sri Jagjeewan, the husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondents no. 2 to 4. The agreement for sale pertained to Khasra No. 388 Sa and part of Khasra No. 202. The agreement for sale also passed on the possession of the said plots to the appellant as was indicated in paragraph 4 of the said agreement. Various payments both in cash and through cheques towards the said agreement for sale are claimed to have been made initially to Sri Jagjeewan and after his death to the respondent no. 1 the details of which have been given in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the affidavit in support of application for interim relief. It is also contended that there was a second plot adjacent to the aforesaid plots which was recorded in the name of the father of Sri Jagjeewan from whom the said plot was purchased through a registered sale deed. It is contended that as the respondents along with certain other persons started interfering in the peaceful possession of the aforesaid plots it compelled the appellant to file a suit for permanent injunction in the year 2021 which was registered as Regular Suit No. 214 of 2021 Inre; Manas India Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. Smt. Meena and Ors before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow. A temporary injunction application was also filed by the appellant and the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 10/12/2021, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the appeal passed an order of status quo. It is contended that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") was filed by the respondents contending that as the suit had only been filed seeking relief for permanent injunction and without seeking the relief of specific performance as such, the said suit was liable to be dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court, vide order dtd. 2/4/2022, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the appeal rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiff/appellant herein, is a master of his suit.