S K DHADWAL Vs. PREM SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.5.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. He has thereby affirmed an order dated 3.12.1986, passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad by which an interim injunction was issued restraining the defendant-petitioner from selling-transferring or alienating the plot in dispute. The petitioner thus being aggrieved against the two decisions of the Courts below, has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) The facts in brief are that an agreement to sell the plot in dispute was entered into between the petitioner and the plaintiff-respondent on 10.9.1984. The consideration for sale was agreed at Rs. 1,00,500/-. Since the plot is situated in the Urban Estate, Faridabad, it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Haryana Urban Development Authority defendant-respondent No. 2 before the sale could be effected. A condition was, therefore, laid down in the agreement that the petitioner shall apply for such a permission and on obtaining the same he shall inform respondent No. 1 within a period of 30 days when the sale deed could be executed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got the permission form respondent No. 2 to sell the plot in dispute on 22.10.1984. It is the case of the petitioner that soon thereafter he addressed letter dated 26.10.1984 to respondent No. 1 under postal certificate. This assertion is however disputed on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(3.) The instant suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent No. 1 on 4.7.1986 to restrain the petitioner from selling or alienating in any other way the plot in dispute to any other person except respondent No. 1. On an application filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, the learned trial Court granted the temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from selling/transferring or alienating the plot in suit to anyone else and, as already observed above, this order was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, in appeal.