(1.) HEARD Shri K.B. Joshi learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admision. This is plaintiff's appeal under O. 43, R. 1 (R) of C.P.C. arising out of the order dt. 22.4.92 passed by the Districts Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 3 -A/92.
(2.) THE case as pleaded and placed by the plaintiff appellant has been noted in sufficient details by the learned trial Judge in para 2 of the impugned order. The plaintiff's application for interim injunction order O. 39, R. 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Sec.151 C.P.C. stands dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order. Shri Joshi learned counsel for the appellant while making his submission in one breath stated that the plaintiff did not rely on right of pre -emption, a right which is no longer available after the coming into force of the Constitution. Shri Joshi, however, submitted that ever since the plaintiff's inductment as a tenant in the suit premises there was an oral agreement one related to right of sub -letting and the other plaintiff's right of pre -emption in the tenant the suit house was required to be sold. An oral agreement of sub -letting on the face of it, cannot form the basis of legally enforceable right. Similarly the right of pre -emption can also not afford an obligation in favour of the plaintiff and against the respondent, which can be said to be enforceable at law.