^ APPELLANTS/ ^PLAINTIFFFS BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ^ _a M.A. No. -]5 of 2011 :1. Manoj Kumaf Agrawal, S/o Shri Atmaram, aged about 30 years. 2,. Nisha Agrawal, W/o Shri Manoj ^ Kumar Agrawal, aged about 28 years. Both are residents of Village Caste- Agrawal, P.S. and Tahsil Vishrampur, Distt.- SurgujafC.G.) VERSUS :J.-)-' Suresh Sahu, S/o Late Daya Ram ^^<:]^1 .••••'""'.^•^ ..••-' shivnandanpur, ^^<"\\ P.S- a"d Tahsil ^^^ ^.•<'"^ ^^-•-^'^'' ^•-t" VSS /RESPONDENTS DBFENDANTS ^' :2 Sahu, aged about 42 years, Smt. Ratna, W/o Late Dayaram Sahu, aged about 65 years, Both caste by Sahu, R/o Vishrarupur (Shivnandanpur) P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil Vishrampur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE l(r( OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE _^ HJQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBjLASPUR Misc. Appeal No. 7S of 2011 APPELLANTS Manoj Kumar Agrawal and another. Piaintiffs RESPQNDENDS Versus Suresh Sahu & another Defendants APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE Kr) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'bleWlr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaisv/al, Advocate for the appeliants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10.08.2011) 1. The instant misc. appeai has been preferred by the appellant against theorder dated 29.07.2011 passed by 1 Addstional District Judge, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja In Civil Suit No.13-A/2011 whereby the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellants/plaintiffs is dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in brief are as under : Plaintiffs herein have instituted a suit for speqific performance of contract against respondents inter alia on the allegation that respondents are not ready to execute the sale-deed in plaintiffs' favour pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 12.5.2010 without any rhyme and reason and subsequently they have entered into agreement of sale with one Banarashi Jaiswal. In the written statement, respondents have denied the existence of above agreement of sale dated 12.5.2010 and receipt of advance money. 3. Learned trial Court held existence and validity of the agreement of sale is a question to be decided during trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the agreement between the parties was duly executed. Banarshi Jaisv/al is already party^in the suit and is bound by principle ^'•^^^^';r??^>- of //s pendens as embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and dismissed the application. 4. I have heard counsel for the appeliants and perused the material available on record including impugned order. 5. Vs/ithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter suffice it to say the right of ptaintiffs is protected by principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Alleged subsequent purchaser is already party in the suit, woutd be certalnly bound by the decree which may be passed in the sutt. 6. In view of above, 1 do not see any reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial Court in dismissing the plaintiffs' application for grant of temporary injunction. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. N.K. Agarwa! Judge D/- ~^5T