IQBAL SINGH Vs. KARAN PODAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 15.09.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, thereby directing both the parties to maintain status quo regarding alienation of suit property till final disposal of the suit, on application moved by respondents-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) and also assailing judgment dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure P-10), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by defendants against order Annexure P-9. Plaintiffs filed suit for possession of suit land by specific C. R. No. 5857 of 2009 2 performance of agreement to sell dated 20.03.2006. It is undisputed that defendant no.1 himself and as attorney of his sons defendants no.2 and 3 agreed to sell 103 kanals 6 marlas suit land to the plaintiffs @ Rs.47 lacs per acre and received Rs.1 crore as earnest money from the plaintiffs. Sale deed was to be executed up to 15.04.2007. Possession of the suit land was to be delivered to the vendees/plaintiffs at the time of execution/registration of sale deed. However, the suit land was also leased out to the plaintiffs for one year vide the same agreement and lease money was also received by the defendants.

(2.) Plaintiffs' case is that on 15.04.2007 i.e. the date fixed for execution of sale deed was a holiday. Accordingly, on 16.04.2007, plaintiffs went to the office of Sub Registrar along with balance sale consideration and requisite amount for expenses of sale deed for getting the sale deed executed and registered as per agreement, but the defendants did not turn up. It is also pleaded that in November 2007, the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land. Defendants' version is that on 16.04.2007, they went to the office of Sub Registrar to execute the sale deed as per agreement, but the plaintiffs did not turn up. The defendants got their presence recorded. However, still the defendants waited thereafter till 05:00 P.M. i.e. time of closing of the office and again moved application. The plaintiffs turned up, but did not have the requisite amount. Even thereafter, the defendants served notice dated 23.04.2007 by registered post on the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed and registered as per agreement, but the plaintiffs failed to do so.

(3.) Plaintiffs, along with plaint, moved application seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land till final disposal of the suit. Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-9), directed both the parties to maintain status quo regarding alienation of the suit land.