SHIVE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Vs. SHRI CHAUTHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal (being directed against the impugned order dt. 19. 8. 1997 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City in Misc. Case No. 23/89 declining grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff in his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell), has come up before this Court for orders on the application dt. 4. 12. 2000 of the plaintiff appellant moved under Order 22 Rr. 4 & 9 r/w Sec. 151 CPC, which has been filed being time barred with 450 days delay from the date of expiry of the sole respondent Chauthmal who admittedly died on 23. 9. 1999 as per death certificate Ann. A.

(2.) FACTS in details are not stated as this order will dispose of only the applications of the parties. However, the facts in narrow compass are epitomised that the appellant plaintiff, a housing cooperative society is said to have entered into an agreement to buy an agricultural land of khatedar Chauthmal (respondent herein) situated in village Sukhalpura Teh. Sanganer of Khasra No. 9 measuring 20 bighas under an agreement dt. 4. 12. 1979 by paying a sum of Rs. 1100/- followed by another payment of Rs. 139075/- against sale consideration on 10. 8. 1980 with a remainder sale consideration of Rs. 123820/- payable at the time of registry. For specific performance of aforesaid agreement to sell the plaintiff society (appellant) instituted a suit in which a temporary injunction was sought by the society and counter claim was also filed for temporary injunction by defendant Chauthmal but, the trial Court after hearing both the parties declined to grant temporary injunction. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) CONTRARILY, Shri R. K. Agrawal while reiterating the contentions raised in reply to the application at hand contended that the story of belated knowledge as to the pendency of the appeal itself, and appellant's posing ignorance is not applicable to any prudent man legally advised specially when, in para 11 of the application it stands admitted fact that the appellant had knowledge of death of respondent long back when his L/rs were brought on record in suit proceedings before the trial Court. According to Shri Agrawal the story (supra) made by the appellant is totally fabricated under the garb of telephonic information reminding one Dharamchand Saini for payment of balance fees in appeal to the Advocate Shri Saket Pareek. He cited the decisions in Union of India vs. Ramcharan (3), Rangubai vs. Sunderbai (4) and Sankaran Pillai vs. V. P. Venuguduswami