IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 330 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 27, 2009 Gurvinder Singh Bhasin. …..Petitioner. vs: Topge & anr. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Chander Narayana Singh, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Ashok Sharma Advocate with Mr Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, For respondent 2: Mr. J. S. Rana, Asstt. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The petitioner (plaintiff) entered into an agreement for sale dated 1.6.2007 with defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein). In terms thereof, the suit land was agreed to be sold by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff and a sum of Rs.4 lacs was received by him as earnest money. The balance sale consideration of Rs.34 lacs was to be paid by the plaintiff on or before 31.5.2008. Neither did the plaintiff pay the same nor did he come forward to execute the sale deed. On 3.6.2008, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining defendant No.1 from alienating, transferring, leasing or mortgaging the suit property till the time 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) issued the statutory sanctions for purchase of the suit land. Plaintiff’s application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim relief was allowed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Manali, Distt. Kullu, in terms of order dated 5.10.2008 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession of the suit land till the disposal of the suit on merits. Aggrieved of the same, defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the District Judge and in terms of the impugned order dated 27.3.2009, the order passed by the trial Court was set-aside and the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It cannot be disputed that statutory permissions for transfer of land as required under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) have not been obtained by the plaintiff. The terms of the agreement are unambiguously clear and prima facie time being the essence of the contract, as specifically agreed upon by the parties, neither the balance sale consideration was offered/paid to defendant No. 1 nor was the sale deed registered before 31.5.2008. The parties categorically agreed that in the event of any default on the part of the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered within the stipulated time, the earnest money would stand forfeited and the owner would be at liberty to deal with the suit land in any manner as desired. Importantly, as per the agreement there is no obligation on the part of defendant No.1 to apply and obtain the statutory permissions. 3 The statutory permissions are necessarily required under Section 118 of the Act, as the plaintiff otherwise is not legally entitled to purchase the suit land. The conduct of the parties, as borne out from the material placed on record, also does not reflect that the parties had ever intended that it was the obligation of defendant No. 1 to obtain the statutory permissions. Importantly between the date of the execution of the agreement and filing of the suit, the plaintiff never offered the sale consideration to defendant No. 1. Nor was he ever called upon to execute the sale deed. Even now, the plaintiff has not sought specific performance of the agreement. His suit is for injunction only. In these circumstances, prima facie time being the essence of the contract and the earnest money having been forfeited, defendant No. 1 has clear right to deal with the property in any manner. No enforceable right remains in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to make out a case for grant of relief of interim injunction. No case much less a strong prima facie case has been made out by him, necessitating interference by this Court. How and in what manner irretrievable and irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff has also not been shown. The lower Appellate Court has rightly set-aside the order passed by the trial Court. Even before the trial Court the plaintiff had not shown his bonafides of performing his part of the obligations under the agreement. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as neither there is any illegality resulting into miscarriage of injustice nor is there any 4 perversity in passing of the impugned order. The present petition is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application. Observations made herein, however, shall have no bearing on the merits at all. Interim order dated 22.4.2009 is vacated. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. November 27, 2009 (rana)