IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 343 OF 2006 Suresh Wasan ……Plaintiff/Appellant Versus Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and others. …..Defendant/Respondents. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for plaintiff/appellant. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for defendant no. 1/respondent no. 2. 15th September, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the defendant no. 1/ respondent no. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27th May, 2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 240 of 2005 Suresh Wasan Vs. Smt. Beena Gupta and another. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff, who is presently appellant before this Court had filed a Suit bearing Original Suit No. 240 of 2005 for mandatory injunction with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants (a) For mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant No. 1 to hand over the plaintiff al the original documents, title deeds including the 2 sale deed dated 18.12.2004 in favour of the defendant No. 1 duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Dehradun in Book No. I, Volume 1337 at page 40, Additional File Book No. I, Volume 1340 on pages 1 to 10 at Serial No. 20 on 06.01.2004 to the plaintiff. (b) For the entire cost of the suit. (c) And any other relief that the learned court may deemed fit may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1.” A counter claim was also set up by the defendant no. 1 / respondent no. 2 in a written statement wherein prayer for cancellation of sale deed was also made. The disputed property is an open land and the contention of the plaintiff / appellant is that there is a valid sale deed in his favour for which the possession has also been given to the plaintiff / appellant by the defendant no.1 / respondent no. 2, yet the relevant documents are not being given to him, for which mandatory injunction has been sought. On the other hand, the contention of the defendant no. 1 / respondent no. 2 as it has been asserted in its counter claim is that the sale consideration was not passed on the defendant no. 1 / respondent no. 2, a fact which is admitted by the plaintiff/appellant that the cheques bearing No. 037109, 037110, 037111 and 037112 dated 10.12.2004 amounting to Rs. 22,00,000/- (Twenty Two Lacs) were not transferred in the Bank Account of the defendant no. 1 / respondent no. 2 as there were specific instructions by the plaintiff / appellant to its Bank to stop payment. Therefore, it is an admitted case that the sale consideration has not been passed-on in this case. 3 The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun after looking all the relevant consideration regarding prima-facie case, balance of convenience as well as irreparable loss, has passed an order, by which the status quo has been directed to be maintained by both the parties regarding the property in question. Since there is a counter claim in Suit No. 240 of 2005 Sri Suresh Wasan Vs. Smt. Beena Gpta and another, order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun is perfectly in order which has primarily been passed in order to save the property, which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned seems to be a just and appropriate order. Therefore, there being no merit in the present appeal it is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 15.09.2009 Rathour