HIGH COURT OF£CBHAil GARH:BK.ASPUR S.B.HOirBl^fiHRl^l.atyKOMSRSiHBmyMRA?^ imscEa-iJuiB^ijsAnpEM^wo.ii^/aote AppeBants; (Plaiatiffs) ^ Respondeats: Defendaats 1) 2) 3) 4) Vs. 1) Mahendra Jain, aged 38 years, s/o. late SIuiSewaram Jain. *p~' Sanat Jam, s^ed 50 years, s/o. .late Shri Sewaram Jain. Ashok Jain, aged 46 yestrs, s/o. late Sfari Sewaram Jaia, Aail Jain, aged 44 years afo, }sLte Sbn Sewaraxa Jain. AU are r/o. Banjari 'ioad, Raipur, Tahsil & Dist Raipur (CG). Smt. Sushila Tiwari, 'wd/o. Late Shri Narendra Tiwari, Suresh, s/o late Shri Narefidra Tiwan. Rakesh, s/o. la.tc Sliii Nazend.ra Tiwari. ! AU r/o. !House No.2-E, Rohini Puram, beluad Ayruvedic CoUege, Raipur, CG. 4) Chaadra Shckhar, s/o. ShriHariPrasad Tiwan, r/p. Santosh Bhawan, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, CG. Ajay, s/o. late Sfari Bihariial Mistea, r/o. ByToniBazar, Fawara Chl>wk, ,-y Raipu^C^/-> 6) Simand Vishwas, aged 36 years, s/o. Shri Satya Vishwas, r/o. Ravi Nagar, Raipur, CG. 7) AjayJam, aged 42 years, s/o. SUri Suresh Chandra Jaiu, r/o. Tagore Nagar, Raipur, CG. 8) Rafeek Sethi, aged 59 years,s/o. Shri Abdul Sattar, r/o. Khetan Garage, Moudhapara, Raipiu-, CG. 9) Ashok Kumar, s/o. Jhamandas Choitiiwaui, at Gopal Jewellers, Banjari Road, Raipur, CG. 10) Shyamlal, s/o. Ijate Shri Lekhraj Choithwani, at Gtopal JeweUeiy, Baajari Road, Raipur, CG. 11) Aiul Kumar, s/o. late Shri Lekhraj Clioifhwani, Banjari ; Road, Raipur, CG. 12) PTabhiu-aui Sahu, aged 66 years, s/o. Ram Singh Sahu, ,. r/o. House No.46/298, Banjari Road, Raipur, CG. 13) Pannalal Saliu, agcd 46 years, s/o. Goverdhan Sahu,- r/o. House No.46/298, Balyan_Road, Raigur, CG. m PR] E1WT: Shri Btushma Kinger, Counselfbr fhe appeDants, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Couasel &r the respoadeats No. 1 to 5 on Caveat. None for respondents No. 6 to 13. ORDBR ( Passed on 17U1 October, 2005) Heard on admission. 2) This appeal uuder Ordcr 43 Ruk 1 of ttie Code of CivU Procedure, is directed against the order dated 15/04/2005 passed by XIth Additional District Judge (F.T.C) Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 92-A/04 whereby fhe appUcation filedby the appeUauts/plamtiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of ffaie C.P.C,, for grant of interim mjunction bas been disnussed. 3) The case of the appellaats/plaintiffs is that on 24/07/2002 respondents No. l to 3, who are the ownera of old House No.46/298 situated at Banjari Teniple Road, Raipur, floor area approx. 2275 sq.ft., executed aa agreeiaent to seU in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 forRs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs). On 06/08/2002 rcspondents No. 4 and 5 executed an affsem.ent to seU fhe said property in favour ofrespondeuts No. 6 to 8 @ Rs. 2,100.00 per sq. fit. and received Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs) as An eamest money. On 12/09/2002 fespondents No. 6 to 8 execHted an agreeme-at to seU fhe said property ta favour of the appeUants/plauitififs@ Rs.2,200/- per sq. ft.,|but respoiuleitts No, 1 to 8 started evading execution of registe;red sale deed in favoiir of the appenants/plaintiffs alfhough fhe Iqtter were always •»eady to peEfbrm fheir part of the^ contract. ._ Afterwards, E» [-;f: III IssiiEHia" ^.^^^a^ciisfrSKi.i^s^a:^ ^ respondents No. 1 fo 13 have coUuded ircter se to defraud fhe appellaats/plauitifife, therefore, fhe appeaUants/plaintiffs ffled ,ia suit for specific performance of the contract and t»T^t mjunction aad for interua reBef also filcd aa appUeati^Et uadeT Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 ofthe G.P.C., for temporaiy | a^iast fhe respondents. Respoiidents No.6, 8, 12 ^aajd reinauied ex partc, rest of fhe respondcnts have oppdssGyg appBcation. {tion ^ ,. M~~"\ ii 4) fr;'t '-..ffSi.' 'S' • Leamed Courtbetow afler due consideratioti§!aiKa]J!|fhs._»L_^-^ir ^:. facts and documents heM. fhat possessipn overihe ^suitj3|(g>perty ^ N . . . •• .. • . •• :• " .". .. :' ? ;::';,;::'.:-.\ • '. ' \.'^''•.\'^':- has iiot been given to veDdor by the seBer and also regis^igff sale | deed uiconformity with agreeinent to sell has not beeu liEecii.fed, therefore, 110 prima facie case has been eslabIisBcdlaafavolBP^ftiis appeUairts, also held fhat principle bfbalance oEGonveiudteeaBK^ irreparable loss does not Ue in their favour," hence rejee|^. fB.e appUcation by fhe unpugned order. ?'iK,' ^^y'- .!'.^:.-. ./*•-• ,..-<*»L 5) Admittedly/fhe suit property js Dbtjnpos^si^ the appellants/plaiutifife. E^ven fiir puTchase of ttie siutgrope^y appellants/pIaiutiBs llave surt entered iiito aa agreexnent wUih; real owiierswhoareiespoiMientsNo.l to 3. Respondeitts Np.9,;10^aiad lt who faave filed.'tlaieiiSWFitten Statenients bcfore lower (Sourfctiiave j'.£l ^l':isri;-'^:'':/ .:' \ -. . . -1--..:. .KS^M SRecificaUy laiBeB^ fhatyresppiulents No. 4 andl 5 did wsy^ay.^Va earaest iliioHey ^ aTtct^ ;tte respondent No.7 Rs.l2,OQ,aOQ|/ No. 4 larifliiS' -|:Sx)nt.I;;tespoiMleitts: No. 4 andj 'S,: ;fheFef^^,,.ttte: n-s. receivetllljbaGk Sal|G;|d%Oe§E%Q6/08/200!2 has no fiMee. «re^i;it88|jS|Ej|agFeeillent;;to"'se]l.:th^g^tB favour of respondenls No. 6 to 8 and fixiia fheia appeUants obtained an agi-eement to seU fhe said property, ttierefore, ifno agreeiaent to sale reinains in favor of respondcnts No. 6 to8, no r^ht to purchase the suit property wifh the respondents No. 6 to 8 remaiiis ia favoiu- of the appeUants/plamtifiFs. -y 6) Learned counselforfhe appellantshas placed reliance on Ashok Kuincir Sabfe Vs. Seveik PrvtsaA Singh, reported in M.P. Weekly Notes 1997(1) ( Short >fe 123), Katl Rtan Vs. SHWU Remi tmd eiiwther, reported in AZR 1967, AUahabaid 484, Balu Singh Vs. Deoisingh, reported in SS.P. Weeklg flotes 1986 (Short Note 162), Prtya. Thakral Vs. Anwr Singh, reported in SS.P. Weekly Notes 1988fiy fShort Note 125), Salagnwn JVcrfiwnrIaI (31^( Vs. JK!/s. Oendutal Madholal Settt, reporteA 1n SS.P. Wectcty Notes 1990 fE) (Short Note 192), KcmtileilDcwda Vs. Mohemlal Sumnei, repurted In SS.P. Weekly Nalxs 1991 (1) ( Short JIwtel4S) emd JSukesh Vs. Deoncuwyem, reported. in. AIR 1987 SSP 8S, but, aU fhesc case laws are distmguishable on facts. 7) It is setUed law fhat graatmg uiterhn injuncti.pn is to lessen the risk of mreparable iajury aad mjustice which cannot be coiapensqted for money. Here, ia the instant case, there appears <- • . • .;'...• D.0 prima facie case in favour offhe appeIlants/plaintifFs and also ~t - .- -. —"- : . :! - .1. the prineiple of balaace of convenience and iiTeparable loss does not U.C iu fhcir favour, therefore, leanied trial Cburt taking iato consjderation all the facts and after due consideratioiu 6f aU the docuiaents, rejectmgfhe applicatipn has iiotorimmitted any error. 8) I ain of the opinioH that no interference is eaUed for iu fhe order passed byfhe trifll CouTt, therefore, fhe appeal deserves to be disniissed sumnianly and is accordingly disniissed. 9) Leamed trial Court shaU decide the suit ia accordance with kiw without beia^ influenced by any offhe observations inade hereia. Looking to fhe nature of the lis and execution of agreement so rapidly, it is directed fhat the lower Court should expedite disposal of fhe case early, prefei-ably witti%_s%jnon&s iGromthEdateofrcceiptofcopyaftUisorder. ^K. Shrh'astava Judge ~--T7/107^005 -- Raju