CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. BRIJ BEHARI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the order dated 31.3.06 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Jhalawar, whereby, while disposing of the application for temporary injunction, it has been ordered that the plaintiff-respondent will submit a solvent security of only Rs. 50,000/-. According to the appellant, the said order does not comply with the judgment of this Court dated 4.2.05, whereby directions were issued to the trial court to determine the value of the property and to seek a solvent security on the basis thereof.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 13.11.02 the respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the appellant. According to the respondent he and the appellant had entered into an oral agreement for sale of 39 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land situated in village Khandiya, Tehsil Jhalara Patan, District Jhalawar. The price agreed upon was Rs. 10 lacs. The appellant had assured the respondent that as soon as the case pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is over, the sale-deed shall be drawn up and registered. At the time of the oral agreement he has sought 50% price of the land for which the defendant had handed over and undated cheque of Rs. 5 lacs. Initially the appellant promised the respondent that he will encash the cheque only after the case is decided by the S.D.M. However, subsequently, without informing the respondent, the appellant submitted the cheque for encashment. The moment, the respondent came to know about the surreptitious manner in which the appellant had submitted the cheque the informed the Bank concerned not to honour the cheque and to stop the payment. Since the cheque bounced, the appellant instituted a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. However, subsequently the said case was withdrawn by the appellant himself. The respondent further claimed that he came to know that the case before the SDM was decided on 29.7.2001 and the land in dispute was handed over to the appellant. Therefore, he requested the appellant to take the remaining amount and to get the sale-deed registered but the appellant did not pay any heed to the respondent's pleas. The respondent further claimed in his plaint that he is willing to implement his part of the contract but the defendant should be directed to him. Alongwith the suit the respondent also filed an application for temporary injunction.

(3.) MR . K.K. Mehrishi Sr. Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that sufficient evidence was produced by the appellant to prove the value of the land in dispute was Rs. 1 crore. However, without appreciating the evidence, the learned Judge has asked for a solvent security of merely Rs. 50,000/-. The said amount is too meagre considering the total value of the land in dispute.