PRABHU DAYAL & ORS. Vs. DHEERENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the trial court ) in Civil Misc. Application No.40/2014, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 14.10.2010/17.11.2010 in respect of the lands in question. In the said suit, it has been alleged by the appellants plaintiffs inter-alia that the plaintiffs are the sons and grand sons of Raghunathji and Smt. Dakhadeviji, whereas the respondent-defendant is one of the sons of Smt. Gulabdevi, the first wife of Raghunathji. The respondent claiming to be the adopted son of Bherulal, who was the brother of Raghunathji, executed the agreement in question to sell the lands bearing khasra No.477, 478, 479/4516, 471 and 472 in question to the appellants on 14.10.2010, which was signed by the parties on 17.11.2010, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement, for total consideration of Rs.80 lacs. According to the appellants, they had already paid Rs.25 lacs out of the said 80 lacs to the respondent by cash as well as by cheque and it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount shall be paid by the appellants on the respondent withdrawing the revenue suits filed by him. However, the respondent did not withdraw the said suits and committed breach of the conditions of the agreement. Hence the appellants have filed the suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement. The appellants had also filed the application seeking temporary injunction pending the suit for restraining the respondents from interfering or causing obstruction to the appellants-plaintiffs in the use and occupation of the lands in question. The said application for temporary injunction was resisted by the respondent-defendant by filing the reply contending inter-alia that the agreement in question had also stood cancelled on the respondent having given the notice to the appellants. According to the respondent, Shri Bherulal did not have any issue and therefore he was taken in adoption by Shri Bherulal and since the lands in questions were wrongly recorded in the name of Raghunathji, the revenue suits were filed by him. It is further contended that the appellants had not complied with the conditions of the agreement in question and the cheque of Rs.10 lacs issued by the appellants towards sale consideration, was dishonored by the Bank, and thereafter the appellants did not pay the consideration as agreed upon in the agreement. According to the respondent, the appellants having filed the suit after gross delay of three years, after the cancellation of the agreement in question, the application for temporary injunction was required to be dismissed.

(3.) 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.