Civil Revision No.1061 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1061 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 15, 2011 Ram Pal Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Baljinder Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 19.11.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, vide which appeal filed by the petitioners against order dated 6.1.2010, passed by learned trial Court, vide which application filed by respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') for ad interim injunction order was allowed, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell the land duly described in the heading of the plaint on the plea that petitioner-defendants entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute in favour of respondent-plaintiff and in pursuance of the said agreement, Rs.15,00,000/- as earnest money was received by them. As per agreement, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 30.4.2009. As per the case of the plaintiff, he was always ready and still ready to perform his part of the contract and that he came present in the office of Sub Registrar on 15.10.2009 alongwith balance sale consideration after Civil Revision No.1061 of 2011(O&M) -2- receiving a notice from the defendants, which was duly replied by him and however, defendants did not come present to perform their part of the contract. Respondent-defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff by admitting the execution of agreement and the receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- as earnest money. However, a plea has been taken that respondent-plaintiff committed fraud and that the remaining sale consideration was not paid, as agreed, and hence, respondent-plaintiff is responsible for breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement and that it was respondent-plaintiff, who failed to perform his part of the contract. Alongwith the suit, an application for ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed by the plaintiff, which was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order and present petitioner-defendants were restrained from alienating the land in dispute except in favour of the plaintiff till the final disposal of the case. Appeal filed against the said order by petitioner-defendants was dismissed by learned appellate Court by observing as under:- “ The perusal of the pleadings on the record shows that as per written statement, the appellant/respondent has admitted the execution of the agreement to sell. The rate settled between the parties has also been admitted. It has also been admitted that the appellants have received Rs.15 lac by way of earnest money. The only grouse of the appellants is that the respondent has failed to make the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- on the stipulated date fixed as 30.4.2009 to the appellants and this shows that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is admitted fact that the appellants are owners of the property in dispute. The question regarding the non-payment of Rs.20,00,000/- on the stipulated date fixed as 30.4.2009 and regarding readiness and willingness of the respondent, the ld. Lower court has rightly observed that this version can be proved only after perusing the evidence to be led by the parties. At this stage the merits of the case cannot be touched when the court is to see only prima facie case. Prima facie the execution of the agreement has been admitted. Civil Revision No.1061 of 2011(O&M) -3- The receipt of Rs.15 lac as earnest money has also been admitted. Other allegations raised in the written statement are matter of evidence. Thus, the ld. Lower Court has rightly come to the conclusion that prima facie the respondent has got a good case and balance of convenience is also in his favour. The ld. Lower court has rightly allowed the application restraining the appellant from alienating the suit property in favour of anybody else except in favour of the respondent. The ld. Lower court has rightly considered and appreciated that huge amount of Rs.15 lac has already been given to the appellants and if the appellants are not restrained from alienating the suit property, the respondent shall suffer an irreparable loss. The ld. Lower court has fully appreciated the contentions of the parties and has appreciated the documents on record and there is no irregularity and infirmity in the order passed by the learned lower court. The order is not perverse in any manner, rather the same is well reasoned order.” Law is well settled that at this stage, the Court is to see prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact as to whether an irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff, if ad interim injunction order is not granted to him. In the present case execution of agreement is not disputed. There is also no dispute that Rs.15,00,000/- were received as earnest money by present petitioner-defendants. It has been rightly observed by learned appellate Court that the fact as to who has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement cannot be decided at this stage as the same is to be seen at the time of final decision after evidence being led by both the parties. Hence, in view of the facts that the execution of the agreement is admitted and receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- as earnest money is also admitted, prima facie case is in favour of respondent-plaintiff, balance of convenience also lies in his favour and to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation, petitioner-defendants were prohibited to alienate the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or Civil Revision No.1061 of 2011(O&M) -4- law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court in the discretion exercised by ld. Courts below in granting ad interim injunction order in favour of respondent-plaintiff. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. 15.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge