LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA Vs. SARLA MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is being decided finally at the admission stage. The present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC arises out of the order dated 4.1.13 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 81/11 (226/09) in Civil Suit No. 142/11, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the appellant -plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the appellant -plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondents -defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 10.6.08 executed by the respondent No. 1 -defendant, for the land in question admeasuring 400 sq. yards for Rs. 16 lacs. According to the appellant -plaintiff he had already paid Rs. 3.5 lacs towards part payment of the sale consideration, however on the measurement having been made on the site, the area of the plot was found to be 300 sq. yards instead of 400 sq. yards. It is further case of the appellant -plaintiff that on the application having been made by the respondent No. 1 Sarla Mathur seller, the UIT, Ajmer had issued the amended lease deed on 23.9.09 and some changes were made with the dimensions of the plot, showing the area of 400 sq. yards. According to the appellant -plaintiff since he was apprehending that the respondent No. 1 would not perform her part of the contract, he filed the suit on 24.9.90. However, the respondent No. 1 executed two registered sale deeds in respect of the said plot in favour of the respondent No. 3 on 25.9.09. The appellant -plaintiff therefore, filed the application seeking temporary injunction against the respondents -defendants. The said application was resisted by the respondents. The trial court after considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties dismissed the said application vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Mathur for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the respondent No. 3 has become the owner of the entire plot by virtue of the registered sale deeds executed by the respondent No. 1 and she being bonafide purchaser and for value without notice, she could not be restrained from developing her land. He also submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court being just and proper, this court should not interfere with the said order.