HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILA5PUR 5.3. HON'BLE SHRI VIJAV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA J MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 710 of 2005‘ Appellan-r : Manoj Kumar' Agmwu! 5/0 Babulal Agmwal aged abou‘r 43 years Agmwal Prin'l’er's Plain'riff Behind Police Thom, Aapapum Disf—Durg (CG) Vs 1)5m1' Dulari Bai D/o Laliumm Valmik Aged abou-I' 51 years R/o Ramancxgar Walipum, Sweeper Co‘ony Kam'l'hi, Nagpur (Maharashtra) 2)5'I'a're of Chha‘H'isgarh- Through ‘rhe Collector, Dhamtari Tahsil & Dist-Dham‘tari 3)5anjay Agrawal S/o Syamsunder Agrawa! Aged about 40 years R/o Gujrati Colony Dhamtari Tahsil & Dist — Dham'tari ‘i ‘ Respondents: PRESENT: l Ms Suni‘l'a Jain, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vishnu Koshta, counsel for respondents No.1 & 3. r. Akhil Agrwal, Panel lawyer for respondent No.2/S‘tate. M ORDER almond 6m April 2006) This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.04.2005 passed by Addi‘tional District Judge Dhaintari, in Civil Suit No.9Al’2005 whereby the applicgtion filed by appellant under Order XXXIX Ru!e 1 & 2 read wifh Secfion 151 of fhe CPC for gram 9f Temporary injuncfian, has been rajec'ted. 2) Appelkm? fi!ed a sui'l’ for specific perfcr-Ignance 3f con-mac? and passession infer-aka on The ground The? respondent No.1 enfered info an agreemenf “in sell The suif iand bearing Khosm No.1é?5/5 area 0.15 acre with fhe appeilan‘t on 13.102004, who affer receiving’RslLOOOL fowards earnesf money exeoufed fhe agreement deed: fhereoffer, appeilanf repeafediy requested responden‘r No.1 To execufe fhe saie bu? she avoided i'i’ and even when regis‘iered nofice was senf To hernshe refused 'ro occep? if. During fhe pendency of fhe suit respondenf N01 soid The sui'r land by a regis‘l'ered sole deed 1'o respondent No.3 on 29.01.2005. Hence, he was aiso made a'par'ry in fhe suit An appiica'rion under Order XXXIX Rule 1 6L 2 read wi‘rh Sec-lion 151 was filed by fhe appellanf for gram of Temporary injuncTion againsT respondenT No.3. RespondenT No.3 denied The claim and sTaTed ThaT no agreemenT To sell The suiT land has been ‘ execuTed by respondenT No.1 in favour of The appeilanT. He furTher sTaTed ThaT he is The absoluTe owner of The suiT land , Therefore, no injuncTion againsT him can be passed. 3) Learned CourT below, from The maTerial on record, held no prima facie case, principle of balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of The appeganj.iTherefore, vide impugned order, dismissed The applicaTion. . in §*‘ 4) Learned counsef fer 1’he appeilan‘r rdying an ‘rhe judgmenm rendered in Asiwé: Kumar Sable Vs $e¥ak Prasad sting}: reported in MP Weekfy Nafes 1997 {I} ska” Nafe .123 and Mahanm! Kkewqii Trys? {.Qegd} Faridkc‘? E’s 3aldev bass repor‘red in 2004 (8} 56'! 4&3, contended 'iho‘r fo avoid mulfiplicify of lifigafion and also fo ‘pro‘iee'i fhe inferesf of appellanf who in absence of sfofus quo may suffer subsfani'ial hss whereas if s'm'rus qua is diowed fiH dispcsa! sf fhé li'rigafien no harm wi" be ceased 1’9 respandenf N93, appellan‘t was enfif!ed fer re!§ef buf, ‘the harried Cour? beiow” wifhouf due censiderafion, verrcneousiy disallowed The applica?ion vide impugned order. 5) Admif‘rediy, responden'r No.1 was 1‘he owner of rhe Sui-r land, who so!d E? fa respondent No.3 by a regisfered so!e deed on 29.01.2005 and also delivered'possession 1o him, who is in possession of fhe same. One of The condifions embodied in she agreemenf to saiereadsihat'nnwmdmmmwndwmwwn mmdmw iwnmammmmdmm EW EVE; m a? WE W " . If indicates thu't on ‘ihe wishes or choice of oppeiion'r fhe soie deed is 1‘0 be execu’red even in 'rhe name of 'rhird person, whefher such on agreemenf can be frea'red as agreemen'f 1'0 soie is‘o quesfion debatable. Se‘!’ aparf, responden'l' No.1 & 3 have raised iha'l' fhere is a dispufe of loan fronsoc'rion: fherefore, whe'i'her 'ihe ogreemenf was executed Towards securi'ry of The loan is oisoioidispuig presen'l' in fhe suit Primo focie, ihe 1 . ~ m @W“ awnership of a land was naf transferred in fuvaur' nf appzlbn-r, whereas by a registered sale deed and deiivery sf possession, #he rea! owner of The suif {and has fransferred i? 1‘0 respondenfaNo.3 who is 1112 owmer am! in possessisa of fhe sui‘r !and. Fmm The recifal of *he agreemem, prima fade, i'r appears fha‘r appeHanT is no? a genuine purchaser bu‘i appears fa be a praper'ty dealer who, +0 faciiifafe fhe business of purchase and sale of land draffed and abfained such a “document rherefare, fhe breach of such an agreemen'r daes no? lead 1he appellanf 1‘5 suffer any irrecarable lass. 6) Taking‘ini'a consideration The facfs and circumstances of the ihstant case, the law laid down in Ashok Kumar Sable (supra) and Maharwal Khewaji Trust (supra), are distinguishable on facts. Evidently, balance of convenience and the principle of irreparable loss do not find favour of the appellant. 7) Considering all the facts and material on record, I am of the opinion that learned Court below did not commit any illegality~or irregularity in disallowing the application of ‘applicant by passing impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from such infirmities, which may require any interference by this Court, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ,/ g \ ’17 (re‘e \', 'e cc; 4J Sd/- Parties to bear their own costsp V.K. Shrivastava Judge podma