RAVI KUMAR Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed a suit, in the Court of Civil Judge, for mandatory injunction, requiring respondent No.1 Mangat Ram to execute sale deed, in respect of the suit property, which the latter allegedly agreed to sell to the petitioner, through writing Annexure P -2, and received full consideration, as per mention in Annexure P -2. Respondent No.1 also allegedly executed a Power of Attorney, annexed with Annexure P -2, in favour of a person of the choice of the petitioner, namely Om Prakash. Said Om Prakash was authorized to transfer/sell the property in favour of any person, including the petitioner. Now, respondent No.1 Mangat Ram is alleged to have sold the said property in favour of respondent No.2 Rajiv Kumar.

(2.) ALONGWITH the plaint, petitioner also filed an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking issuance of a temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from further alienating the suit property and also from changing the nature of the suit property. That application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge. Appeal filed against the order of Civil Judge, dismissing the said application, has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge. Petitioner has now approached this Court, by way of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order of trial court and the appellate court and allowing the prayer for temporary injunction.

(3.) AS a matter of fact, the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property and not for mandatory injunction and this is one of the grounds, recorded by the two Courts below, for rejecting his application, for grant of temporary injunction.