GOVIND CHAWLA Vs. MANOJ CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC against the order dated 17.01.2017, passed by the Court of learned 12 th Additional District Judge, in COS no.198-A/16, whereby the application for temporary injunction has been rejected.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract dated 02.06.2012. According to the plaintiff in pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, he paid the amount of Rs.50.00 lac on 07.06.2012 and Rs.1.00 crore on 15.06.2012, but despite that the defendants did not execute the sale deed in his favour. After execution of the agreement, the plaintiff came to know that the erstwhile owner had already sold the suit property to M/s Jee Developers and Ashok Wadhwani on 03.09.2005, 05.01.2006 and 18.01.2006. At the time of agreement to sale, the defendant were not the owner of the suit property. They came to know in the year 2015 that now the defendants have purchased the suit property and became the owner. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the civil suit for specific performance of the contract, declaration and permanent injunction alongwith an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. In the aforesaid application, plaintiff sought the injunction that the defendants be restrained to alienate the suit property. The respondents/defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed the reply to the application for temporary injunction by admitting that agreement to sale dated 02.06.2012 was executed with the plaintiff and at the time of agreement he paid Rs.50.00 lac but thereafter, he has failed to pay the remaining installments which were due on 02.06.2012, 07.06.2012, 15.06.2012 and 15.07.2012, therefore, the agreement has been canceled and the advance amount paid by the appellant has been forfeited. The learned trial Court after considering the material available on record vide order dated 17.01.2017 has dismissed the application for temporary injunction with the observation that if any alienation takes place during the pendency of the suit that would be covered under Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal before this Court alongwith an application under Section 151 of the CPC. Vide order dated 18.04.2017, notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents marked their presence on 12.05.2017. Thereafter, the appellant is seeking adjournment since 22.11.2017 that there is a possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. Till today, no such settlement has ever been arrived, therefore, this Court has insisted to the counsel for the appellant for argument on admission of this appeal.