TIRATH DAS SHIVNANI Vs. LAXMI NARAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the order dated 12.1.2012, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur ,(hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Misc. Application being No. 154/2011, whereby the trial court has rejected the said application of the appellant-plaintiff filed under Or. XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 27.3.2005, which was subsequently amended by the agreement dated 10.5.2005, in respect of the land in question, against the present respondents-original-defendants. The appellant-plaintiff also filed an application seeking temporary injunction as prayed for in the said miscellaneous application No. 154/2011. The said application was resisted by the respondents defendants and the trial court has vide the impugned order rejected the same.

(3.) It has been submitted by learned senior counsel Mr. Garg for the appellant that the appellant-plaintiff had paid Rs. 20 lacs at the time of the execution of the agreement in question and thereafter also was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The appellant-plaintiff had also issued the cheques worth Rs. 90 lacs to the respondents-defendants, however, the plaintiff had stopped the payment of the said cheques as the plaintiff had subsequently come to know that there was a dispute going-on between the respondents-defendants & their neighbour in respect of the suit land. He also submitted that the appellant-plaintiff had not received any notice dated 1.7.2005, from the respondents-defendants, nor the plaintiff had given any reply to the said notice, as contended by the defendants. He also submitted that if the injunction as prayed for is not granted, the suit of the appellant-plaintiff would become infructuous. Mr. Garg has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Shanker and Ors. Vs. Satya Prakash and anr.,1982 RLR 116 and submitted that the civil court has jurisdiction to grant injunction under Or. XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 to preserve the disputed property pending the suit.