MALA Vs. VEDHEHI RESORT PRIVATE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court rejected their application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that appellant-plaintiffs laid a suit for for cancellation of Patta, declaring sale deed null and void and for permanent and mandatory injunction against respondent- defendants. Along with the plaint, appellants also preferred an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that land of Aaraji Nos.3347, 3348, 3349, 3350 admeasuring 1.4900 hectare i.e. 2/10 of the total land was purchased through registered sale- deeds dated 21.02.2013 from one Panna Lal Bheel and thereafter applications were laid before the Urban Improvement Trust under the provisions of Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act for conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes. It is also the case of plaintiffs that other purchasers of remaining parts of the land of aforesaid Arajis also submitted their applications for conversion of land on 24.06.2013. It is claimed that their applications for allotment of land in their favour were pending consideration respondent No.5 U.I.T., but as they were out of town, they could not appear before the U.I.T. and taking benefit of this situation defendants Nos.1 to 3 got issued allotment orders in their favour by submitting requisite fees through challan. It is claimed that by putting forged signatures of the appellants in the office of U.I.T., the allotments orders were got issued by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their favour showing that the appellants had consented for it whereas the appellants had never given consent or authorized defendants Nos.1 to 3 to get allotment orders or get issued Patta for the land in question to them. Patta dated 29.11.2013 was issued by the U.I.T. in the name of defendant No.1 and on that basis defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 12.10.2017 sold out the land in question to defendant No.4. It is also claimed by appellants that they were not in know of these facts but when an information was published in daily newspaper "Danik Bhaskar" dated 16.02.2018 by defendant No.4 that the land in question is being transferred in its name, the appellants approached the U.I.T. and could know all about the forgery made by defendant Nos.1 to 3, as such they lodged a report at Police Station. Later on, appellants also realized that defendant No.4 is influential, resourceful and contemplating to construct a hotel over the land in question, filed the suit along with temporary injunction application.

(3.) After issuance and service of summons as none appeared on behalf of defendants Nos.1 to 3, learned trial Court closed their right to file written statement and reply to T.I. application vide order dated 22.06.2018 and thereafter vide order dated 27.06.2018 ex-parte proceed against them. Defendant No.4 submitted its written statement and reply to the T.I. application on 12.04.2018 while denying the averments of the suit as well as application for grant of temporary injunction. In the reply, it is also averred by defendant No.4 that it is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question. Defendant No.4 claimed that there was an agreement to sale dated between plaintiffs with 8 other Khatedars and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the each of the plaintiffs received an amount of Rs.6,00,000 on 18.09.2013. It is contended by defendant No.4 that it purchased the land after it was allotted to defendant Nos.1 to 3 and on that basis. Defendant No.5 U.I.T. also submitted its separate written statement denying the averments of the suit.