NAMINDER SINGH Vs. ATMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE herein is to an order passed on 30.3.2013 by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 -XIV of 2013 reversing thereby the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Una in an application, CMP No. (Civil Suit No. 25 of 2005) 310 of 2010, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the parties during the pendency of the suit have been directed to maintain status quo qua the suit land.

(2.) THE bone of contention between the parties in the present lis is land measuring 0.23.05 hectares, allegedly purchased by the respondent -defendant from petitioner -plaintiff out of the total land measuring 0.78.40 hectares entered in Khasra Nos. 101 and 121, Khatauni No. 58 min, Khewat No. 56 min situate in village Khurwain, Tehsil Bangana, District Una vide sale deed No. 588 dated 11.10.2004. Petitioner -plaintiff claims that he never sold the land in dispute to the respondent -defendant and rather agreed to mortgage the same with the respondent -defendant in a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - being required by him for his own medical treatment. The respondent -defendant, however, claims that the petitioner -plaintiff had sold the land in dispute vide registered sale deed and he is now owner -in -possession thereof.

(3.) HAVING gone through the record and also taking into consideration the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also other legal complications of like nature, an order directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit land would serve the ends of justice for the reason that there exists an arguable case in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff as he has disputed the execution of sale deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The allegations as per the version of the respondent -defendant, no doubt, are wrong because as per his case, he is the bona fide purchase of the land in dispute on payment of consideration and even has been put in possession also thereof. The claims and counter -claims so laid by the parties, however, will be determined on the basis of evidence, oral as well as documentary, they will produce during the trial of the case. Therefore, without lamenting much on the merits of the case at this stage when the question of grant of interim injunction is under consideration, suffice would it to say that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent -defendant in case the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the land in dispute during the pendency of the main suit.