SAMMI KHAN Vs. KANTULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil misc. appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Kishangarh Bas, District Ajmer (hereinafter 'the trial court'). Thereby in a suit for specific performance laid by the respondents -plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') on an accompanying application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the learned trial court has directed that the appellants -defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') maintain status quo with regard to the suit land and also not alienate, transfer or otherwise create any third party rights therein during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) COUNSEL for the defendants submitted that the suit for specific performance for whatever its worth did not deserve any interim order in favour of the plaintiffs particularly in view of the fact that the suit was laid in the year 2012 in respect of a purported agreement to sell dated 17.06.1985 i.e. after a delay of about 27 years. He further submitted that even otherwise the agreement to sell dated 17.06.1985 is palpably forged in view of the fact that as against the case of the plaintiffs of purchase of stamp paper for typing out the agreement to sell dated 17.06.1985 from a particular stamp vendor, certified copy of the stamp register obtained from the aforesaid stamp vendor indicates that no such stamp was sold. It was submitted that in fact the suit for specific performance as laid is a complete misuse of the judicial process only with the intent to pressurize the defendants for giving into the unfair demands of the plaintiffs in view of the fact that mere pendency of the suit more so along with an interim order as passed by the trial court on 29.11.2012 would lead to diminution of the price of the land in the ownership of the defendants and work to their gross injustice.

(3.) THE impugned order under challenge before this Court has directed status quo and further that the suit land not to be alienated, transferred or otherwise not be encumbered by creation of third party rights therein. Counsel for the defendants has submitted that the defendants are in possession of the suit land. In view of the aforesaid statement, the order of status quo does not in fact materially affect the defendants adversely in the immediate future. As far as the question of alienating, transferring or otherwise creating third party rights in the suit land is concerned, counsel has fairly submitted that the defendants are in no hurry to either alienate, transfer or otherwise create third party rights in the suit land. In this view of the matter, rather than addressing the very substantial contentions of the counsel for the defendants, in my considered opinion, the interest of justice in this case would be served in the event the trial court, where the suit for specific performance is pending, is directed to dispose of the said suit within a period of six months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. To ensure compliance with the order of this Court it is further directed that adjournments at the instance of any party would only be allowed on a written application and by way of a reasoned and speaking order. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plat P. Ltd. & Others [ : 2011 AIR SCW 5789] would also guide the trial court on the issue of adjournments.