Civil Revision No.1807 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1807 of 2009 (O&M ) Date of Decision: July 14, 2009 Jai Kishan Garg ...........Petitioner Versus Randhir Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate,with Mr.Rajneesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge Gurgaon (Annexure P3), vide which the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner was dismissed, against the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurgaon whereby the application for ad-interim injunction was allowed. Plaintiff-Randhir Singh has filed a suit for possession by specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 17.10.2005. The case of the parties as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, as noticed in paras 2 and 4 of its order, reads as under:- “Let us first have a look at the allegations of the plaintiff contained in the plaint:- The defendant was owner in possession of land measuring 7 kanal 12 marlas comprised in Rect. No.31, killa No.10, situated within Civil Revision No.1807 of 2009 2 the revenue estate of Kherki Majra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land). In October,2005, the defendant approached the plaintiff and told him that he was full fledged owner in possession of the suit land and the suit land was free from all type of encumbrances and he had a clear marketable title. Believing the representation of the defendant to be correct, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit land for a sale consideration of Rs. 16,25,000/- but the defendant executed an agreement of sale on 17.10.2005. An amount of Rs. 1 lac was received in cash by the defendant as earnest money. The defendant admitted and acknowledged the receipt of the said advanced money of Rs. 1 lac. As per compromise and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,25,000/- was payable to the defendant at the time of registration of sale but within 60 days and stamp and registration charges were to be incurred by the plaintiff. The defendant was bound to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees on or before 15.12.2005. In case the plaintiff fails to get the sale deed registered on payment of balance sale consideration the earnest money was to be forefeited. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed by incurring the requisite stamp and registration charges. The plaintiff contacted the defendant for registration of the sale deed and the defendant intimated that the sale deed would be registered on the stipulated date on Civil Revision No.1807 of 2009 3 15.12.2005. On 15.12.2005 the plaintiff came in the office of Sub Registrar, Gurgaon along with funds for paying balance sale consideration etc. but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked with the Sub Registrar, Gurgaon. The defendant developed malafide intention on account of increasing price of the land and bent upon of committing breach of contract dated 17.10.2005. With these allegations, the plaintiff sought a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.10.2005. 4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement in which preliminary objections about maintainability, acquiescence, estoppel, concealment of material facts, non-joinder of parties, locus standi, cause of action, under valuation and fraud were taken. On merits, it was pleaded by the defendant that the suit land was auctioned by Rehabilitation Department on 29.6.2005 and the bid of the defendant was accepted on 20.7.2005 by the Settlement Officer, Sales, Gurgaon and earnest money of Rs.1,21,750/- was deposited by the defendant at the time of auction and balance sale consideration of Rs.3,65,250/- was also paid. It was further pleaded that later on the Joint Secretary Rehabilitation Department, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh started the process of reconsidering the said bid. The said reconsideration of the bid came to the knowledge of the plaintiff recently when the Tehsildar Sales, Gurgaon issued a notice to the defendant and prior to that the defendant had been approaching the Tehsildar, Sales, Gurgaon for getting the sale deed executed in Civil Revision No.1807 of 2009 4 his favour. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had got the signatures of the defendant on blank proforma of the agreement and the defendant had apprised the plaintiff that only his bid has been executed by the department and that no sale deed/allotment had taken place in his favour but the said agreement was executed only in good faith and the defendant had not even read the actual contents of the said agreement. It was denied that the defendant had approached the plaintiff to sell his suit land. It was also denied that the answering defendant was full fledged owner in possession of the said suit land or had marketable title to sell it. The defendant further pleaded that he had absolutely no knowledge about the contents of the said agreement. It was further pleaded that the performance of the alleged document cannot be done on account of the circumstance beyond the power and control of the defendant. It was also denied that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff had got no right to enforce the alleged agreement of sale which was result of fraud and cheating played by the plaintiff upon him. Refuting the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit". Along with the suit, an application for interim injunction was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Vide order dated 23.10.2007, the trial Court restrained the defendant-petitioner from alienating the suit property in any manner. The Additional District Judge vide order dated 14.1.2009 has upheld the said Civil Revision No.1807 of 2009 5 order. Hence, the present revision petition by the defendant-Jai Kishan Garg. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. The plaintiff-respondent has sought specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.10.2005. Defendant-petitioner had, admitted, his signatures on the said agreement to sell but has stated that the signatures were obtained by fraud and on blank proforma of the agreement. Both the parties are yet to lead their evidence in support of their case. At this stage, the Courts below were required to see as to whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and whether he would suffer an irreparable loss, if interim injunction was not granted to him, during the pendency of the suit. Since in the present case, the signatures on the agreement to sell in question are admitted by the defendant and it is yet to be established as to whether the same were obtained by fraud or on blank proforma of agreement, the ends of justice require that the defendant is restrained from alienating the suit property. The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed ( Sabina ) Judge July 14, 2009 arya