RAJESH NIGAM Vs. RAMESH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff) against the order dtd. 30/10/2019 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.4, Ajmer (for short, 'the appellate court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 21/2018, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant no.1 has been allowed; the order dtd. 20/3/2018 passed by the Civil Judge Ajmer City (East), Ajmer (for short, 'the trial court') has been set-aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC for temporary injunction was filed. The Trial Court vide its order dtd. 20/3/2018 allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the respondent-defendant no.1 filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The said Court vide its judgment dtd. 30/10/2019 set-aside the order dtd. 20/3/2018 passed by the trial court and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that original title of the land in question was in the name of Mohan Lal S/o Shri Ram Lal. As per agreement to sell dtd. 8/10/2012 after receiving the amount of sale consideration to the tune of Rs.6,96,654.00, the possession of the plot was handed over to the plaintiff by Shri Mohan Lal and since then he is in possession and occupation of the plot in question. Neither Mohan Lal or any of his family members nor the respondent - defendant no.1 challenged the agreement to sell dtd. 8/12/2012 at any stage. The defendant no.1 not submitted any legal document, which could show that he had purchased the land in question from its owner. However, the learned appellate court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and on this count, the impugned order dtd. 30/10/2019 passed by the court below is liable to be quashed and set-aside.