DURGA KEER Vs. MAZEED AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Budhni, District Sehore in M.C.A. No.04/2020 whereby the lower appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Budhini, District Sehore in Civil Suit No. 36A/ 2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction was allowed.

(2.) In brief the case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the petitioner Smt. Durga Keer entered into a lease agreement with the respondent/ defendant No.1 Mazeed Ahmad Khan on 7.6.2019 in respect of his land admeasuring 7.929 hectares (19.59 Acres) situated at survey No.1/2, Tahsil Budhni for a period starting from 1.5.2019 to 30.06.2024 and subsequenly, an agreement to sale was also executed on 08.08.2019 in respect of the same property, by and between the same parties. The case of the petitioner/ plaintiff is that soon after the aforesaid agreement was executed by the respondent No.1, the aforesaid land was also sold by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 through a registered sale-deed dated 7.11.2019 for a consideration of Rs.46,44,000/-.

(3.) After purchasing the said land, the respondent No.2 i.e. Kishor Singde tried to disposses the petitioner/ plaintiff hence the suit for injunction was filed along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The learned Judge of the trial Court, vide its order dated 13.02.2020 allowed the application and restrained the defendants/ respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner/ plaintiff, however, the aforesaid order was assailed by respondent No.2 Kishor Singde before Additional District Judge, Budhni in M.C.A. No.04/2020 and the learned lower appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 23.03.2020 has reversed the order of injunction passed by the lower Court and it was further directed to the defendant/ respondent No.2 that finally if it was found that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, the defendant No.2 therein shall also liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff as may be assessed by the Court. Mr. Mazeed Ahmed Khan was also directed to furnish undertaking to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- in this behalf for compliance of the order.