SUNIL KUMAR KEDIYA Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC arises out of the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court"), in Civil Misc. Application No. 106/2006, whereby the trial court has dismissed the said application filed by the appellant -plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. In the instant case, it appears that the appellant -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement allegedly executed by the respondents -defendants on 16.07.1984. The suit was filed on 02.12.2006 and pending the suit, the application for temporary injunction was filed, which has been dismissed by the trial court. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Babu Lal Gupta for the appellant that one of the conditions in the agreement in question was that the respondents would execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, as and when the tenant vacated the suit property. According to him, though the tenant had vacated the suit property in the year 1991, the appellant came to know about the said fact only in the year 2006, and therefore, the suit was filed. He also submitted that it would be the matter of evidence to be lead at the time of trial as to whether the appellant would be entitled for the specific performance of the agreement or not, however till then the respondents be restrained from transferring or alienating the suit property, in order to avoid further multiplicity of the proceedings.

(2.) THE Court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. As transpiring from the impugned order itself, the appellant had come to know about the suit property having been vacated by the tenant in the year 1991, as the learned counsel for the appellant had given notice to the respondents mentioning about the said fact. Hence, it has been rightly observed by the trial court that the appellant was aware about handing over the possession by the tenant to the respondents in the year 1991, however the appellant had not filed the suit seeking specific performance for about 15 years. The present suit being grossly barred by law of limitation, the appellant could not be granted the relief as prayed for. The trial court having rightly considered the factual and legal aspect for dismissing the application of the appellant seeking temporary injunction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the just and proper order passed by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any substance in the present appeal, and hence the same is dismissed.