TB .1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl APPEI.LANT8 R'ESP&NDENTS ...•;"»' /'f'.idt.l'r •?.?•'' sA.i* ^y^ .?•' (SfLA^Blo, /2006 / Harl Vallabh Agrawal aged about ^ 35 years, S/o Ramdayal Agrawal, Businessman, R/o Shanti Chowk Purani Basti, Raipur, Tah& Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Surya Kumar Agrawal aged about 38 years,S/o Bhlkham Lal Agrawal Bhikham Lal Agrawal, aged about 55 years, S/fa Sukhnandan Lal Agrawal, Smt. Laxmi Bai Agrawal, aged about 50 years, W/o Shri Bhikham Lal Agrawal. All R/o Aminpara, Lili Chowk, Tah&Dlstt. Raipur, (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER ORDER43 RllLEI OF C.P.C XI-HC-22 3Ti^?rqii f^IRiSn^T sKIiT'fiV^f 3 T -^MM^, wftu'w, Rxiiwy an^rira-^ H' A-t^'.'z-syo^ ••(Ti-Tcirsitiicn Wi; 200 (cl't)»& 3n^rgTBTWHf?a' 18-1-2006 Mr. Rataa PU! Mr. Ravjndra caveator/ resp None for resp< fildd atd Heanl on AppeUant contract based ori au agil respondents entered iatol favour of the appeUaiit towards it aiid also filed aad 2 of the Code of Civil The respondents denied was violated bv the and refunded the amountl Leanied appeUant did not file the| bas not been handed have stated fhat thev havt tliat unnciples of balanc^ not lie ui favour of application filed bv fhe ^ Order 39 Rules l aa.d 2 oi In agreeinent the seUer to cancel aad ii adidission wifepftT mRffffteIA ifezR ^>3rf^IT3TI^1 ^ty, counsel for tlie appellaat. ftgrawal, counsel for fhe ondent No.2. mdents No. 1 aud 3. tbe appeUaut Coulrt ovitr aad M.(C.)P.No.37/2006. a suit for speci&c perfonnaace of seinent to sell'dated 8-8-2004, whereby a contract for sale of the suit laad iu have received Rs.5 Lakhs as advance |ail application under Order 39 Rules 1 |Procedure for grant ofiiiterim uiji.'uction. claim. and pleaded that the agreeinent Uaut, fherefore, fhev canceUed the saitie lofRs.5 Lakhs taken bv tliein ia advance. below considered the fact tliat tiie origiaal agreeaient to seU, the suit laiid to fhe appeUant aud the respondents refunded the advaace ainount, aud held of convenience aad irreparable loss do appeUartt, therefofe, disruissed the IppeUaiit for teinporanr uijunction iinder the Code ofCivfl Procedure. |to sell, there is a clausc which authorises ifund fhe amount to buyer. It is prima (Ifl^^^) tilie ^ XI-HC-22 35? ^(l-'lld'y, ®Tfl+i'is,Ridi+iy ,3TT^rtra^ ^-/[-"U® '.'^/o^ t<iy?11sfit|l* ••*•••—••^••••••/•••^ 200 STI^TEfiT f^TT'RSTI^T aiIiWCTf?(T fade evident that in that corrected as Rs. 17.5 Laklt respondents, and they, clause 2 of fhe agreem.4nt refaiided the amount to tU< Takiag iuto of fh.e case, I am'offhe correcflv held fhat the oj irreuarable loss do not coiTectlv dismissed the call for anv iuterferencej disiaissed and is accordin^h iato consideration the n^.i directed to expedite trial o^ ofone vear from. todav. In fhe Ught o|f I.A.No. 123/2006 stand di^ •shi'iil(-i41-i tfwvii fffscS (f^ere ^arf^irsn^i cflaiise the amouiit Rs.7.5 Lakhs has been is. The suit land is ia possessioii ofthe ;ontendiag fhat fhe appeUant violated have canceUed fh.e agreeiaent aad appeUant. cdinsideration the facts and circumstances <|)puiion that, leanied District Judge has tiaciples of balance of convenience and |find favour of the appellaiit and has a^pUcation. The irupugned order does not fherefore, the appeal is liable to be .in^ly disinissed in limine. However, tafcuig [.ture of the dispute, fhe trial Court is the case early preferably withia a period above order, M.(C.)P.No.37/2006 aiid posed of _ _ \__. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge