IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.259 of 2011 Date of decision : December 13, 2011 Ravi Kumar son of Shri Ram Prakash, Presently Private Work, Resident of Mohalla Chituan, Ward No.7, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Mangat Ram son of Shri Savita Ram son of Ganeshu, Caste Rajput, Resident of Village Jalgran Mauza Tabba, Tehsil and District Huna, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Rajiv Kumar son of Shri Nardev Singh, son Munshi, Caste Rajput, Resident of Village Tabba, Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh. …Respondents. Petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the judgment dated 30.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Una in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.17/10, titled as Ravi Kumar Versus Mangat Ram whereby the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court NO.4, Una (HP) in CMA No.3/2010 titled as – Ravi Kumar versus Mangat Ram has been upheld. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner has filed a suit, in the Court of Civil Judge, for mandatory injunction, requiring respondent No.1 Mangat Ram to execute sale deed, in respect of the suit property, which the latter allegedly agreed to sell to the petitioner, through writing Annexure P-2, and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? CMPMO No.259/2011 …2… received full consideration, as per mention in Annexure P-2. Respondent No.1 also allegedly executed a Power of Attorney, annexed with Annexure P-2, in favour of a person of the choice of the petitioner, namely Om Prakash. Said Om Prakash was authorized to transfer/sell the property in favour of any person, including the petitioner. Now, respondent No.1 Mangat Ram is alleged to have sold the said property in favour of respondent No.2 Rajiv Kumar. 2. Alongwith the plaint, petitioner also filed an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking issuance of a temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from further alienating the suit property and also from changing the nature of the suit property. That application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge. Appeal filed against the order of Civil Judge, dismissing the said application, has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge. Petitioner has now approached this Court, by way of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order of trial court and the appellate court and allowing the prayer for temporary injunction. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. CMPMO No.259/2011 …3… 4. As a matter of fact, the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property and not for mandatory injunction and this is one of the grounds, recorded by the two Courts below, for rejecting his application, for grant of temporary injunction. 5. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that an application, for amendment of plaint, has been moved, so as to seek the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell. Reply to that application is also stated to have been filed, by the respondents. 6. In view of the above submission, the present petition is allowed, impugned orders of the trial Court as also the learned appellate Court are set aside and it is ordered that if the application for amendment, moved by the petitioner, is allowed by the trial Court and he is permitted to seek the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell, the Civil Judge (trial Court) shall decide the application for temporary injunction afresh. Till such time, nature of the suit property shall not be changed, by either side. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. December 13, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J