GEETA RATURI Vs. SANJIV KUMAR & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P5), whereby the application filed by the petitionerdefendant, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been rejected on the ground that there is a cause of action in the plaint and since the suit was filed before the last date fixed for execution of the sale deed as per sale agreement, the suit for injunction was maintainable.

(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the respondent filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction claiming that he was the tenant and the present petitioner-defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement on 16.09.2013, regarding the shop in question. A sum of Rs. 5 lacs had been paid by way of cheque and the balance amount was to be paid by 15.01.2014. A dispute has arisen regarding the ownership of the shop and legal notice had been sent on the ground that the size of the shop was less than what was mentioned in the sale agreement. The defendant had threatened to sell the shop to someone else due to which the suit was filed for permanent and mandatory injunction, to provide all the documents and not to execute the sale deed in anybody else's favour except the plaintiff.

(3.) Written statement was filed by the present petitioner, taking the plea that the plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to purchase the shop and he had failed to perform his part of the contract and did not turn up on 15.01.2014 along with the balance sale consideration and the agreement stood cancelled and the suit was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as no ad valorem Court fee had been affixed and only a suit for specific performance was maintainable.