w, $ ‘ /(/1ay ‘1W $ \ ' iauaT-i iiFEE "‘ \ ’\ ‘ 1||’\JVFI‘( ‘w‘\\‘BH v a E § ,.».,-;.: an“; M w“ ‘ .IN TEE HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BIL;%PUR / 520 / ‘ Misc. ApPeai No. /2005 IKPPELLANT 5% /Gunmder smgh sandq, f C ’ 8/0 Shri Mahmdra Singh Sando, Agai abuut 45 years, R/o Civil Lines, GE. Road, Raipur, £ Tahsil & Disttict — Raipur (CG) ~Ver5us ~— w é REPQNDENE / Shri Seerat Smgh Sando. Defendants 2/ Shri Baljeet Smgh Sando. Both 8/0 Late Hardeep Ejngh Sando, Rio Sande Ice & Cold Shorage, Emma Base Stand Kcrb@ Tahsil & District- Km‘ba (CG). / )b i i APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE (r) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURI: CODE. (f / XI—HC—22 1210512005 Shri Pmahant Jayaswal learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Ali Asgar, counscl for the appcll ant. Shn' B.P. Shayna, leamcd counsel for the mspoxidents. ‘* ‘ Heard on admission Appellant med a C Suit for specific performance‘of contract and permanent in d. M.C.P.No.756/2005‘ h'on against the respondents in the Elourt of District Judge, Rai ur, and along with that also $cd an application for grant of mmp my injunction under Order 39, Rulc 1 and 2 read. with Section l 1 of the Code of Civil Procedum. The case of the app , in brief, is that on 15/ 10/2004 an agrccment to sell was ex outed by the defendants/respondents in favour of appellant for ing the land measuring 5200 ‘sq.ft bearing plot No,17/ 13 sit ted at Civil Lines. Raipur, for a consideration of Rs.23,50,000/- after mceiving an advance of Rs.1,50,000/-, but themafter defendants/respondents refused to sell the suit land to plaintin‘I apyellant and instead entered into second agleement to sell the same on 23/ 02/ 2005 with Singhal 9 Distributors Private Ltd. .4 Respondents/defendants denied execulion of the aforesaid agreement to sell in favou:' ofappellant/ Plaintin; «and speeincally i j c e t H t a XI-HC—22 pleadai that they entered imao an agmement to sell the said land for Rs.49,89,200/ — with Singkhal Distributors Pl‘ivatc Ltd. Aamittcdly, thc 1it1c‘ u mspondents/ defendants and by appellanti plaintitf a‘s well as respondents/defendants has been executed, yet the possession of the suit lami rests with respondenh/ defendantsw holdcm \of the suit land arc although agxecmcnt to sell as alleged Learne‘i trial Court, into account the affidavits an held that although, p ' appellant/plainiiE, yet the principle of irreparable loss i reasoned order dated 06/0 'Older 39, Rule 1 and 2 been dismissed. Being ag appeal has been preferred. Appellant/plaintid‘ codtended that vide agxeement to sell dated 15/ 10] 2004 for 71 defendants agreed to Sell SQQVO sq.ft of land situated at Civil Lines, 1t and received an advance of icra‘égl} simigeupport the documents med by both the parties; £acie, case is in favour of balance of convenience and the not in his favour. Therefore, vide a [2005 the application nled under with Section 151 of the C.P.C., has ved with that impugned order, this Rs.23.50,000’/‘-. the respondents Raipur, to ‘ plaintiE/ appellai Rs. 1,50,000/ - towards consid (weed) XI-HC-22 said contention, it is argued that théy have mgd a$davit and i photocopy 9f the said agreement in trial Court. ‘ On the other hand, respondents contented that they have I not executed “appellantl plaintm‘ for any amount nor have received any amount from him. The cost of suit land is more than Rs.47,00.000/-, ‘ therefoxe, they cannot enter into such anagreement for sale thé suit lan‘d for half of it agmement to sell h the Rs.47,89,200/— and also 1e ived an advance of Rs.4,61,000/- towards its consideration. value. They have entered into an d to Singhal Distributors for ‘ther. respondents contended that the phinu'E/appellant hm concocted fake and fabricated document to grab their val 1e land. To support their contenu'on, they have also Eed affidavit No doubt, as a result of rival contentions a sen'ous question, whether defendants] respond: sell in favour of plaintiE/ap] grab the land concocted and raised. Hence, a prima facie, Suit land is in possessi is also undisputed that title entered into an agreement tou sell the land for Rs.47,89,200/— to ’Singhal Distributors Private ‘ a party in the suit. Prima fac [dc Singhal Distributors Pvt. Ltd., as tea) and agreement to sell. N nts have executed any agleement to )ellant or appellant/plaintm‘ only to fabricated the false document, has ease is there. )n of the Iespondénts/ defendants. It lies with them. "They have aheady Ltd., but the plaintiE/appellant knowing this fact, has not ma ie, it appears that the pmposed land .-\ any ‘agretnnent to sell the suit land to XI—HC—22 ‘ Wm WW WW V‘ Raju . to be sold by the defendants/respondents to Singhal Distributors costs Rs.47,89,QOO/— whereas plainu'E/appellant wants to ‘ purchase the same only for an meager amount of Rs.23,50,000] - which is around half of its’ rsal value. Agrccmcnt to stll in favour er dispute and on affidavit Rdefendants/respondents ha c allcged the said document a ' £abricated one. Therefore, these circumstances, learned lower Court, on sound reasom' decided the factoxs required for sa £avour of respondents] defendants, not committed any illegality or in‘egulan'ty. Apparently it ap ea1s that balance of convenience as also the factor of irre arable loss lies in favour of defendants] respondents. Appellant relied on decision rendered by Delhi High Court in Vijay Kumar pta Vs. Mani Pal and another, reported in AIR 1987 Dell: 345, but on the facts this case is distinguishable. The impugned order p ssed by the learned District Judge, Raipur, does not call for interference, therefore, the appeal med by the appellant is lia to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, Consequently. : of p1aimi§lappellant is disposal bf the application in i M.C.P.No. 'F56/2005, I.A.Nos. 1372/ 2005 and 1373/2005 disposed oi"; l / d Sd/— I‘. V.K. Shrivastava 1 Judge d ' n u b