MOHD AZAM ALI Vs. MUSLIM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kishangarhbas, District Alwar whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar whereby the learned Jude has upheld the order dated 29.5.2009 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff, Mohd. Azam Ali, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant, Muslim Ali, wherein he had claimed that on 13.5.2002 both the parties had entered into an agreement to sell a plot whose boundaries were given in the plain alongwith a map. It was agreed that the plot would be sold for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- out of which at the time of entering into the agreement, the respondent has paid Rs.10,000/-. However, subsequently as the respondent-defendant did not pay the remaining amount, the petitioner-plaintiff was of the opinion that the agreement has come to an end. But on 14.4.2009, the respondent-defendant tried to dispossess the petitioner from the said plot. Therefore, the civil suit for permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. However, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 29.5.2009, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. But, by order dated 21.1.2014, the learned Judge, too, has dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, according to the petitioner since the respondent-defendant failed to pay the complete consideration amount, the agreement to sale had come to an end. Although the respondent has produced a receipt in order to show that he had, indeed, paid the complete consideration amount, the said receipt was a forged documents.