SHANKER LAL Vs. RAVINDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') read with Sec. 104 of CPC, assailing the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali ('Trial Court') in Civil Misc Case No. 04/2015 whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, vide order dtd. 18/1/2016 (Annex.1). Certain ancillary relief(s) are also claimed by the appellant/defendant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed on 31/3/2015 by respondent/plaintiff no. 1 for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff no. 2 entered into an agreement to sale in favour of his son, respondent/plaintiff no. 1 since the appellant/defendant, who resided at Puna at that time had given power of attorney to respondent/plaintiff no. 2, who is also appellant/defendant's brother-in-law, for the purpose of obtaining a patta for a piece of land owned by the appellant/defendant. The basis of the said suit was the power of attorney and the agreement to sale (Annex.3) made by the respondent/plaintiff no. 2 with his own son, respondent/plaintiff no. 1 in consideration of Rs.10.00 lakhs for the Plot No. 25 which was ascertained as Rs.11.00 lakhs and the market value of the same plot was Rs.30.00 lakhs. In the said suit, the respondents/plaintiffs also prayed for restraining the appellant/defendant from selling the suit plot in favour of any other person and subsequently, an application was filed seeking exemption of notice under Sec. 80 of CPC, since the respondent/plaintiff no.3, Sub-Registrar, Sojat was also made a party.

(3.) The appellant/defendant in his reply to the said application stated that the appellant/defendant is the exclusive owner of the plot No. 25 measuring 50x25 feet located in Khasra No. 4530 and that he is having an interrupted possession of the said land. After filing of the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC by the respondent/plaintiff no. 1 to restrain from transferring the said plot to any other person and no interference to be caused in the possession and use of the said plot. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, while directing the appellant/defendant to not sell or transfer the said land to any other person than respondent/plaintiff no. 1. It was also directed by the learned Trial Court to the appellant/defendant to not interfere in the possession of the said land himself, or through his servant(s), agent(s) or relative(s).