UMAR HAYAT KHAN Vs. TALAT SARVER KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to order dated 30.3.2010 passed by Principal District Judge, Poonch in File No. 18/Misc, titled as Umar Hayat Khan and Anr. v. Talat Sarver Khan and Ors., dismissing the application for grant of ad-interim relief/temporary injunction (for short, hereinafter impugned order).

(2.) Appellants/Plaintiffs filed a suit before the Principal District Judge, Poonch for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.10.2010, allegedly executed by father of Respondents/Defendants 1 to 5 and husband of Respondent/Defendant No. 6 in favour of Appellants/Plaintiffs, and for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from causing any interference or raising any construction over the suit land. Alongside the suit, the Appellants/Plaintiffs filed an application for grant of ad-interim relief/temporary injunction. The Respondents/Defendants filed the written statement and resisted the suit on the grounds taken in it. It is averred that Appellants/Plaintiffs have no right, title or claim whatsoever over the suit property and Defendants are owners in possession of the same. Neither father of Respondents/Defendants 1 to 5 and husband of Respondent/Defendant No. 6 executed any document-agreement to sell nor sold any plot of land by way of any document to the Appellants/Plaintiffs. The so called agreement to sell is fabricated one. It was neither produced during the lifetime of Sajid Sarwar Khan nor shown. Appellants/Plaintiffs had already filed a suit before the learned Munsiff Mendhar for grant of permanent injunction for the same subject matter and against the same Defendants and alongside the suit, also filed an application for temporary injunction which was dismissed on 28.2.2009. The Appellants/Plaintiffs without assailing the said order have filed a fresh suit before the District Judge, Poonch on 2.3.2009, which is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC).

(3.) The Plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts, so no interim relief can be granted only on the ground that they have not come with clean hands. The trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the application for grant of interim relief vide impugned order dated 30.3.2010.