SEEMA DUBEY Vs. JEAN HOOKINS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 21st December, 2013. By the aforesaid order, the trial court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, declaration and also prayed for permanent injunction. Mr. George Hookins entered into an agreement with the husband of the plaintiff in regard to sale of lands comprising Khasra No. 286, 287, 269 & 270 area 8.50 acres situated at Tilhari, Jabalpur. Mr. George Hookings, was died and thereafter, she entered into another agreement on 26/01/2001 and an amount of Rs. 14,51,000/ - was paid to defendant no. 1. It was further agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid at the time of execution of sale -deed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has contended that the order passed by the trial court is against the law. Earlier this court passed an order of injunction, the trial court has no power and authority to refuse the application for injunction in view of the order passed by this Court. The other defendants who purchased the land during the pendency of the suit proceedings are not bona fide purchasers. The plaintiff has a prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour. Hence, the order passed by the court below is against the law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments: -