IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.6697/2008 Date of Decision:17/2/2009 Shinda ..........Petitioner Versus Paramjit Kaur ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Ashok Giri,Advocate for the petitioner-plaintiff. JASWANT SINGH,J This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Shinda-petitioner-plaintiff challenging the orders dated 8.10.2005 (Annexure P/2) and 28.8.2006 (Annexure P/3) whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by him was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred by him also stood dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.5.2005 relating to a brick kiln. Alongwith the suit he also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction, praying therein that respondent/defendant be restrained from interfering into the working of the brick kiln in question. It was alleged by the petitioner-plaintiff that he had entered into an agreement to sell dated 16.5.2005 with the respondent-defendant for sale of brick kiln in question and that out of total sale consideration of Rs.9 lacs, Rs.5 lacs as CR NO.6697/2008 2 earnest money was paid to the defendant. It was further averred that the possession of the brick kiln was also handed over to the petitioner-plaintiff by respondent- defendant and as such he was in actual possession of the brick kiln. It was also stated that the respondent-defendant that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.8.2005, but since the appointed date was a holiday telegrams were sent to the respondent for execution of the sale deed on 16.8.2005, on which though the petitioner was very much present in the office of Sub Registrar, but respondent- defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed and now she was threatening to illegally and forcibly interfere in the working of the brick kiln. Upon notice of the application, respondent filed reply stating therein that the (i) brick kiln was installed on land taken on lease, (ii) the alleged transaction is purely a loan transaction amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- with the clear understanding that the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- raised against agreement dated 16.5.2005 would be returned with interest; and (iii) sale of a brick kiln cannot be enforced without the consent of State Government and the lessors. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and perusing the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the material before it, while dismissing the application for ad interim injunction, found that in terms of the alleged agreement to sell, the petitioner has not been able to get transferred the licence and lease deed in his favour, meaning thereby that the brick kiln was not in operation and as such question of interference by defendant did not arise. Regarding the genuineness of the agreement to sell it was observed that the same can only be set at rest on the basis of evidence which,of course, is yet to commence. CR NO.6697/2008 3 The learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, in addition to the aforesaid reasons noted by the learned trial Court, found that the petitioner had filed the suit “for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.5.2005 and proprietary possession of brick kiln” whereas in the injunction application he was claiming to be in possession of the said brick kiln. Thus, it was found the petitioner was, prima facie, taking contrary pleas in the main suit and in the injunction application. It is, therefore, apparent from the documents produced on record that the petitioner-plaintiff so far has neither obtained the licence in his favour nor got lease deed executed in his favour for running the brick kiln as per the conditions laid down in the agreement. It is further clear that the brick kiln is lying idle and nobody is operating the same and therefore, there is no question of any interference in its operation by the respondent-defendant. Hence the prayer for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering into the working of brick kiln in question cannot be accepted. Even otherwise the petitioner-plaintiff has approached this Court after more than two years meaning thereby that he is not factually facing any threat from the defendant. Accordingly,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 17/2/2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge