SEEMA DUBEY Vs. PRAKASH DHIRAWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff on the ground that non-applicant/defendant No. 2 in spite of status-quo order dated 9/8/2004 passed in M. A. No. 2007/2004 constructed one room, one Varandah, three roads, pipeline and installed one electric pole over the property in dispute in the month of January, 2005 and disobeyed the status-quo order passed by this Court and, therefore, he be sent to civil prison for a period of three months and his property be also attached.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that an area of 8. 05 acres of Khasra No. 286 and 270 of Mouza Tilhari, Settlement No. 223, P. C. No. 23, Tahsil and District jabalpur was owned by George Hookins. Husband of applicant and one sanjay Bhatia entered into an agreement for purchase of the said land on 17/51999. On 2/11/2000 George Hookins expired. After the death of george Hookins the applicant entered into an agreement for sale dated 26/1/2001 for purchase of the said land for a consideration of Rs. 16. 51 lacs. On 27/7/2001 an area of six acres out of total area of 8. 50 acres has been transferred by the legal heirs of late George Hookins in favour of Dr. Rajesh dhirawani, Dinesh Dhirawani and Prakash Dhirawani.

(3.) ACCORDING to applicant, she on 26/1/2001 entered into an agreement for purchase of an area of 2. 63 acre of Khasra No. 286 and 270 situated at village Tilhari, Tah and District Jabalpur. On 28. 2. 2002 defendant No. 1-Smt. Smt. Jeen Hookins widow of late George Hookins executed a sale deed in favour of non-applicant No. 1/defendant No. 2 for a consideration of rs. 11,83,500/ -. The applicant challenged the said action by filing a suit on 8/1/2004 for specific performance of contract, to declare the sale deed dated 28/2/2002 in respect of an area 2. 63 acre as null and void and also claimed a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the non-applicant from alienating and transferring the property in dispute and also parting of possession in favour of any other person. The applicant also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, CPC for temporary injunction and prayed that the non-applicant be restrained from alienating and transferring the property in dispute and also from changing the nature of the property in dispute, parting with the possession in favour of any other person during pendency of the suit. The property over which injunction was being sought is 2. 63 acres of land comprising Khasra No. 286 and 270, PC No. 23, settlement No. 231 of Mouza Tilhari, Tah and District Jabalpur.