RAM SINGH Vs. KISHMAT KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant civil revision under Section 115 CPC has been preferred against the order dated 27. 2. 2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 68/98 whereby appeal has been allowed and the order granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 passed by the learned trial Court has been setaside and his application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 10. 8. 1982 against the defendant Late Chand Singh (who is now represented by defendant Nos. 3 to 8) with the averments that he sold his khatedari land to him for Rs. 44,000/- out of which he received Rs. 11,000/- as earnest money. THE petitioner further paid him Rs. 3,000/- on 22. 8. 1982, Rs. 22,400/- on 14. 5. 1983 and Rs. 400/- on 2. 2. 1985 against written receipts and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale-deed which he agreed to execute on Kartik Sudi 15 Samvat 2040, but he avoided to do so. He gave him a notice in this regard and thereafter filed this suit along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. THE application was resisted by the non-petitioner defendants but the trial Court issued a temporary injunction on 19. 4. 1990 restraining them from alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit. It is averred that the defendants deliberately in violation and disobediance of the order of the court sold the land in question to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 26. 4. 1991 knowing fully well the factum of temporary injunction having been issued against the vendors. THEreafter, the subsequent purchasers who were impleaded as party to the suit and relief was also amended to the effect that the sale-deed executed during the pendency of the suit inspite of temporary injunction was illegal and not binding on petitioner. It appears that the suit land was then acquired by the U. I. T. Alwar. When the subsequent purchasers tried to get the amount of compensation of the land, petitioner filed another application for temporary injunction for restraining them from receiving amount of compensation from U. I. T. , Alwar. THE trial Court after hearing the parties allowed the application and passed an order to the effect that the defendant non-petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 shall be entitled to receive amount of compensation on their filing a bank guarantee within a period of one month in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs and an undertaking to the effect that in the event of plaintiff petitioner's succeeding in the suit, they shall repay the amount of compensation along with interest @ 24% p. a. to the petitioner and an their failure to file the bank guarantee and undertaking, they shall not be entitled to receive the amount of compensation till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order they preferred appeal before the learned court below which was allowed and the order of the trial court was setaside vide impugned order. Hence, this revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has then strenuously argued that the suit property having been acquired, the agreement of sale has become void due to doctrine of frustration provided under Sec. 56 of the Indian Contract Act as has been held in the case of `piarey Lal vs. Hori Lal' His next contention is that the agreement for sale does not confer any title as held in the case of `sunil Kumar Jain vs. Kishan and others'