^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Misc^CivinAppeai No.27/2007. Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri DiSip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appeijant PIaintiff M, Respondents Defendants 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sunderlai Mishra son of iate Gayaprasad Mishra aged 55 years R/o viliage Pandhi Tahsi! Masturi District Biiaspur (CG) At present R/o vjliage Bidoura Tahsil Lohara Distt. Kabirdham (CG) Versus Smt. Narmada widow of late Motiial Mishra R/o Singhanpuri Tahsil Lohara via Siihati Distt. Kabirdham At present R/o through Ramkhilawan Mishra cuitivator R/o viliage Jhal near iVlungeii Tahsil iVlungeii District Bilaspur (CG) Ghanshyam Prasad Tiwari aged 36 years son of Khuiuram Tiwari R/o Mopka Tahsi! & Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Ashok Kumar Sharma aged 38 years son of R.K. Sharma R/o Katiya-para Juna Biiaspur Tahsi! and DisSt. Bilaspur (CG) Sanjai Mishra aged 31 years son of Laxmi Prasad Mishra R/o village Pandhi Tahsil P^asturi Distt. BJJaspur (CG) Bairam Rakesh aged 32 years Chandariai Rakesh Sindhi Hindu businessman R/o Hemoo Nagar Bilaspur (CG) 6. Prithvipal Hoora aged 57 years Son of Balvant Singh Hoora Punjabi, businessman resident of Takhatpur District Bilaspur (CG) ADpeai under Order-43 Ruie-1 ofthe C.P.C. 1908 Present:- Shri Ram kumar Tiwari, counsel for the appeiiant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th Juiy, 2007) Heard on admi$sion. 2-z- v ' ./.'• 2. The appeilant ss aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2007 passed by the 3 Additional District Judge, Biiaspur in civil suit No. 15-A/2007 whereby the appiication under Order-39 Rule-M1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed. 3. The appelianVpiaintlff had fiied a suit for specific performance of contract alleging thatthe defendant No.1 had parted with possession of the suit land at the time of agreement. Learned iower Court has, after appreciation of the material placed before it by the appeiiant/piaintiff, recorded a finding that the plaintiff's documents i.e. agreements are vague and do not show that possession of the sult !and was deiivered to the plaintiff. There was thus no pnma-fade CB.SQ in favour of the piaintiff. Since the defendant No.1 had already sold and delivered possession of the land to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 for a consideration of Rs.8,04,000/-, the balance of convenience aiso did not iie in favour of the appeiSant/piaintiff. It was also observed that considering the fact that the !and was actuaily soid for Rs.8,04,000/- by the defendant No.1 , it was highly improbable that she would have agreed to se!l the land for a paltry consideration of Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff. On this premises, the learned Additlonai Dlstrict Judge refused to grant temporary injunction in favour ofthe plaintiff. 4. No such infirmity or iiiegaiity is seen in the impugned order so as to justify any interference in appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. ] Sd/- i Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya