PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Vs. JHILLI GOCHAYAT & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition involves an order passed by the appellate court reversing a status quo order granted by the trial court involving an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Admittedly, the suit is for specific performance of contract as well as permanent injunction. The suit is based on a plaint case on the basis of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 3 for sale of the disputed property indicating the receipt of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) from the plaintiff by the defendant nos.1 to 3 endorsing therein delivery of possession in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged in the suit that after entering into the agreement for sale of the disputed property, there has been subsequent sale in favour of the defendant no.3, the present contesting opposite party involving the same property. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 along with plaint filed an application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Claim of the plaintiff in the application and whole reading of the Interim Application appears to be based on the averments in the plaint and strictly based on the unregistered agreement claimed to have been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3. This application was being objected by all the defendants, i.e. defendant nos.1 to 3 objecting the claim of the petitioner involving the Interim Application, particularly, the response made in paragraph-11 of the objection at the instance of the defendant nos.1 to 3 in the Interim Application reads as follows:

(3.) There is also a serious objection to the claim of the petitioner by the defendant no.4 therein. Considering he rival contention of the parties, the trial court allowed the Interim Application No.65 of 2016 with the sole observation that there exists an unregistered agreement between the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 involving a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only and when the property is protected from being further alienated or change in the nature and character, the plaintiff is likely to be affected and prejudiced. This order being challenged by the defendant no.4 in the appeal, the appeal was registered as F.A.O.No.44 of 2016. The appeal was decided on contest and with an order of reversal giving rise to filing the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition.