JAIRAM Vs. BHAWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-plaintiff has directed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dated 20.9.2000 passed by Xlth Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.11-A/2000 thereby allowing the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 (defendant) under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and restraining the appellant-plaintiff from interfering with the possession of the respondent-defendant on the disputed land during the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case that on 24.5.1999 respondent No. 1 Bhawar Singh (defendant) agreed to sale his 2 bighas and 5 biswa agricultural land to appellant (Jairam) bearing survey No. 88/3 situated in village- Satlana, Tehsil- Sawer, District - Indore at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per bigha. On the same day an agreement to sale dated 24.5.1999 was executed and the appellant has paid rupee one lakh as part of the consideration to respondent Bhawar Singh. It was agreed between the parties that the appellant shall make payment of remaining amount of Rs. 80,000/- to the respondent by 22.11.1999 and thereafter, the respondent Bhawar Singh shall execute the registered sale-deed in favour of the appellant with regard to the disputed land. It is stated that after the execution of the alleged agreement and receiving part of the consideration of rupee one lakh the respondent (Bhawar Singh) avoided to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant on receiving the remaining amount of consideration as agreed between the parties. The appellant-plaintiff after service of notice on the respondent No. 1 and the respondent-State under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code filed a suit against the respondents for grant of decree for specific performance of contract for sale of the disputed land and also for issuance of the injunction against the respondent restraining him from interfering in the possession of the appellant. On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant an application under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was also filed for grant of temporary injunction against respondent No. 1 (Bhawar Singh) restraining him from transfering the suit land to any other person during the pendency of the suit. One service of notice of the aforesaid application on the defendant-respondent an order dated 23.2.2000 was passed by the trial Court on the consent of the parties on IA No. 1 filed on behalf of the appellant directing maintenance of status-quo with regard to the suit lands during the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant and defendant respondent No. 1 was restrained from transfering of alienting the said lands to any other person by sale, mortgage or by any other means during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) I have heard Shri R.K. Gethewale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and Shri Z.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 3 and Shri V.P. Khare, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 4-State.