BALRAM DIXIT Vs. SANTAN SINGH LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC by the plaintiff against the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur in C.S. No. 73-A/2011 dismissing the application for issuance of temporary injunction.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for appellant is that in a suit for specific performance of contract filed on behalf of plaintiff/appellant, an application for issuance of temporary injunction was submitted by him on the averment that in the document of agreement of sale, the factum of delivery of possession has been mentioned and if that would be position, learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed on behalf of plaintiff praying that defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession.

(3.) However, Shri Saurabh Bhusan Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2/defendants argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that although the factum of delivery of possession has been mentioned in the document but this has been vigorously disputed by the defendants that infact the appellant is in possession of the suit property. By inviting my attention to the finding of learned Trial Court para 11 it has been put-forth that as per plaintiff's own showing possession was given on the date of execution of document of agreement of sale dated 29.05.2007 but in the later entries of the revenue record the possession of respondents no.1 and 2 has been shown and therefore learned Trial Court did not commit any error in dismissing the application. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on two decisions of Supreme Court, they are Skyline Education Institute (Pvt.) Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani & Anr., 2010 AIR(SC) 3221 and Kashi Math Samsthan & Anr. V. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & Anr., 2010 AIR(SC) 296 and prayed that this appeal be dismissed.