IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.114 of 2011 Chandrasekhar Prasad Singh, Son of Late Jay Narayan Singh, Resident of Village – Pachchiari Malahi, P.S. – Barh, District – Patna. At present residing at Mohalla – Kagji Town and P.S. Biharsharif, District – Nalanda. ……………… Plaintiff / Appellant Versus Mukesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Mahendra Singh, Resident of village – Puri Malahi, P.O.+P.S. – Barh, District – Patna. ………….. Defendant/Respondent ---------------------------------- 3 17.11.2011 Heard Sri Shanti Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant on appeal which has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 27.12.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 62 of 2006 by Sub Judge II, Barh. By the said order the learned court below has rejected the petition for injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant. The appellant has filed a suit vide Title Suit No. 62 of 2006, mainly with a prayer to declare sale deed relating to suit property as void. It was claimed by the plaintiff/appellant that the sale deed was got executed on 13.08.2004 and the appellant/plaintiff had also received consideration money of Rs. 2,35,000/- for the suit land described in the sale property. However, registration of the sale deed was delayed for some time, and subsequently, it transpired that after four months the defendant got the sale deed registered by making interpolation in the main sale deed. It was pleaded that after execution in the month of August 2004, the appellant had retained a photo copy of the sale deed but subsequently after noticing that by making interpolation it was got registered extending the area in the sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaring the sale deed as void. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 for 2 injunction for restraining the defendant from the suit land which has been dismissed by the court below by the order dated 27.12.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was a clear cut case of interpolation and thereafter the defendant had extended the suit property in the sale deed by making interpolation whereas the appellant has executed the sale deed regarding the lesser area of the land mentioned in the sale deed which was executed on 13.08.2004. After committing fraud the defendant was trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the land and as such the injunction petition was filed. It was argued that the learned court below without appreciating the fact has rejected the injunction petition. I have perused the impugned order. Fact remains that the sale deed was got registered. It is also admitted that consideration amount was received by the plaintiff. The question whether in the sale deed any interpolation has been done or not is required to be looked into during the trial. It is evident that the plaintiff/appellant had executed the sale deed after accepting consideration money. I do not find any defect in the impugned order warranting interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)