AMIT DIXIT Vs. SMT. SADHANA SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 27.01.2011 (Annexure P/1), whereby the court below has rejected the Miscellaneous Appeal of petitioner filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and confirmed the order of trial court dated 05.02.2010, whereby application of petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was rejected by trial court.

(2.) Shri B. Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that a suit for specific performance was filed against respondents No.1 to 4 and permanent injunction was sought against respondent No.5 -Municipal Council. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.5. The said application was rejected by trial court on 05.02.2010.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the trial court dismissed the said application on the ground that the agreement to sell which was executed by husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4 is not properly stamped and it is an unregistered document. Hence, it is not admissible in evidence. In addition, the trial court held that possession of petitioner over the suit plot is not legal. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to get injunction.