RAMESH KUMAR Vs. WARYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramesh Kumar, plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated Jan. 6, 1991 allegedly executed by the defendant-respondent in his favour in respect of land measuring 138 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in village Dholbaha, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. As per the allegations in the plaint, respondent entered into an agreement to sell dated Jan. 6, 1991, with the petitioners and thereby agreed to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 1,38,500.00 out of which a sum of Rs. 90,000.00 was paid by the petitioners as part-payment of the suit land and the remaining sum of Rs. 48,500.00 was agreed to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed which was agreed to be got executed within one year from the date of the alleged agreement. A large number of trees standing on the suit land were also agreed to be purchased by the petitioner alongwith the suit land. Alongwith the suit petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the respondent wanted to cut those trees forcibly with an intent to cause unlawful damage to him. A prayer was, therefore, made that the respondent be restrained from cutting the trees standing on the suit land. On this application an ex parte order of status quo was passed by the trial Court on July 27, 1992.

(2.) Suit was contested by the respondent. It was alleged by him that he never executed the alleged agreement to sell nor did he receive any earnest money from the petitioner. According to him, the alleged agreement to sell is a forged document. While deciding the stay application on merits, the trial Court noticed that the agreement to sell had not been got written from a regular deed writer and none of the attesting witnesses belonged to the village of the respondent. The trial Court also noticed that it seems somewhat difficult to believe that the petitioner would part with such a huge amount of Rs. 90,000.00 allegedly paid on account of earnest money without keeping an authentic proof. Ex parte order of status quo was consequently vacated by order dated Nov. 17, 1992. While vacating the order of status quo, however, it was ordered that the respondent would sell the trees standing on the suit land with the consent of the petitioner to the highest bidder and for this purpose, the respondent would give prior notice to the petitioner informing him about prospective buyer and in case the petitioner is able to manage some other buyer who would be willing to purchase the said trees at the higher rate than what is quoted by the buyer who would give more price and after sale, the sale consideration of the trees shall be deposited in some bank in the name of the Court and disposed of subject to the decision of the suit.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, by order dated May 21, 1993. While dismissing the appeal, learned Additional District Judge observed, "after considering all totality of circumstances, I hold that adequate protection has been given to the defendant by the order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the appellant has no case for irreparable injury of balance of convenience and as a result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, the defendant is directed to sell the trees after giving due intimation to the plaintiff through the trial Court in regular proceedings." The plaintiff-petitioner seeks revision of the orders passed by the Courts below.