MUKAN KAUR Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 23. 2. 2001 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar whereby the injunction application and the application under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 CPC were dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the suit for specific performance of the contract was filed by the appellants- plaintiffs on the basis of an agreement dated 1. 5. 82 with the respondent-defendant. The consideration for sale was Rs. 1,75000/- and the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,55,000/- to the vendors and Rs. 20,000/- were payable at the time of registration. According to plaintiffs, in pursuance of the agreement to sell, the possession was handed over to the plaintiffs on 22. 06. 1983 and Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the defendant. According to plaint allegation that it was the duty of the defendant to obtain permission for sale from the District Collector, Sriganganagar and, thereafter, he was to serve a notice of one month upon the plaintiffs but the defendant did not apply for permission till 1990 and in the year 1991 the provision for seeking permission came to an end and at that time the plaintiffs requested to the defendant to get the sale deed registered in their favour but at that time the defendant added by saying that some suit is pending and he will execute the sale deed after the decision of the suit. In the year 1995 on 15. 10. 1995 the defendant totally refused to execute the sale deed, therefore the present suit was filed.

(3.) THE facts narrated even by plaintiff prima facie show that plaintiff was not very much serious about getting the execution of sale deed in his favour. If the agreement was executed in his favour whether there was sufficient reason for plaintiff to remain silent for such a long period will be gone into after evidence of the parties, but at this stage there appears to be no satisfactory reason for filing the suit for specific performance of contract at belated stage. While granting injunction the courts are required to see prima facie case, a due diligence of the parties particularly who is seeking relief from the court of law. Even if some permission was required under law for execution of the sale deed, even then according to the plaintiff himself that requirement came to end in the year 1991, but the plaintiff did not chose to persue his remedy by approaching to the defendant in a manner to persuade him to execute the sale deed or in case of not doing so by the defendant then to approach the court of law, therefore there appears to be no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.