JAKIR HUSSAIN KHAN Vs. SABIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Order 43, Rule (1)(r) CPC against the order dtd. 10/7/2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Misc. case No. 10/2023 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the plaintiffappellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract dtd. 13/5/2023 and permanent injunction. In the suit it was claimed that the plaintiff-appellant executed an agreement to sale dtd. 13/5/2023 with the defendants-respondents nos.1 and 2 with respect to their share of land to the extent of 1/444 each situated at Khasra no.226 and 227 as mentioned in para no.2 of the temporary injuncation application (hereinafter referred to as the suit property for short) for a consideration of Rs.5.00 lacs, out of which Rs.2.00 lacs were given as advance and the remaining amount of Rs.3.00 lacs was to be given within 15 days. It was claimed that the said agreement to sale was executed on 500/- rupees stamp paper and two witnesses Mohsin and and Mohd Sahid witnessed the same. Thereafter, it was submitted that since the defendants refused to perform their part of contract, therefore, appellant got served upon the defendants a notice on 27/5/2023 through his advocate. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-appellant preferred the aforesaid suit seeking the above reliefs. Alongwith the said suit, the plaintiff-appellant also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking interim injunction. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present civil misc. appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is having prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and if the injunction sought is not granted to the appellant, then there would be irreparable loss to the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff-appellant sought injunction only to the extent that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants may be restrained from alienating the suit property. However, the learned trial court without considering the prayer of the appellant, on filmsy grounds rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.