IDAN RAM Vs. BUDHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these six petitions relate to the same lis, I propose to dispose them of together by this order.

(2.) Budha Ram-plaintiff filed a Suit No. 31/93 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jodhpur for specific performance of contract against Idan Ram, Ramchandra, Dasu Ram, Dhalla Ram and Land Acquisition Officer, U.I.T., Jodhpur with the averments that he and defendant No. 4 made a contract with defendants 1, 2 and 3 to purchase land of Khasra Nos. 101 and 102 situated in Chopasni. A sum of Rs. 20,000.00 was paid to the intending seller in part performance of the above contract. The remaining amount of Rs. 7,200.00 was to be paid at the time of the execution of the above document. It was also averred that the sellers delivered possession of the above land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff several times asked the defendants-vendors to execute the sale deed and get the same registered as per agreement but the latter refused. The above suit was eventually decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiff. It may also be stated that the plaintiff's father after obtaining the decree filed an execution application in the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jodhpur which is still pending. The above execution is under Challenge at the instance of the petitioners under an application filed under Sec. 47, C.RC. It appears that in the meantime the land was sold by the defendants to other persons. When the plaintiff came to know about this development he filed six suits against the petitioners praying for injunction. The petitioners them moved an application under Sec. 10, C.P.C. on the ground that the proceedings of the above suits be stayed as the execution application in respect of the decree passed in Civil Original Suit No. 31/ 93 was pending before the Court and its executability has also been challenged by filing an application under Sec. 47, C.P.C. The petitioners also very strongly pleaded that though the plaintiff has got decree in respect of the disputed land, he cannot be said to have acquired any right, title or interest in the above land inasmuch as so far the sale deed has not been executed in his favour in pursuance of the above decree. The learned trial Court, by its order dated 3-4-1997, dismissed the application in each suit. Hence these revision petitions.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners.