KAILASH Vs. BHAGWATILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by order 15/7/2024 passed in MCA No.13/2023 by the District Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar whereby the order dtd. 29/8/2023 passed in RCSA/20/2023 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Badnawar has been set aside and his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuance of temporary injunction has been rejected.

(2.) The plaintiff has instituted an action against defendant No.1 for specific performance of contract dtd. 1/11/2022. He has contented that on 1/11/2022 defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sale with him with respect to the suit lands for a total consideration of Rs.36,11,000.00 upon receiving earnest money of Rs.50,000.00. His son had also signed upon the same as consentor. Under the agreement defendant No.1 was enjoined to create a passage to the suit land which has not been done by him till date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but defendant No.1 is not doing so despite notice dtd. 20/11/2022 to him in that regard. Instead defendant No.1 is attempting to alienate the suit lands in favour of third persons.

(3.) Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuance of temporary injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit lands in any manner. The defendant No.1 filed his reply to the application submitting that no agreement to sale was ever executed by him in favour of plaintiff nor he had received any amount by way of earnest money. The terms of the agreement as set up by plaintiff are totally false. Instead he has entered into an agreement to sale with respect to the suit lands in favour of one Manoj on 11/11/2022 and since no agreement itself has been executed in favor of plaintiff, he is not entitled for issuance of temporary injunction in his favour .