fg 7 égle Be@~ Q _ E A mmsprm ’ 5’ ‘5 gimum FEE’ — . } 3'HJF1 . Ivan'iV Premsingh Lhouna aged abaut 65 years, ‘ S/o Late bhx-i k Bharmsingh Chouhan, & i Stat. ki3esh Chauhan, aged about 64 years, w/o Shri Pramsingh Chouhan, Both R/o Smrati Bhauan, Near Green Chowk Station Road DURG, mstt- Burg (CG). W§. M.R=mdey, Aged abut 53 years, S o Late Shri FLM 9atmey, Rio Vaishan Nagar, Bhilai, Distt burg (CG)... RE PONDENT. FENDA . M 1) c am U ITH ORDER gun, RULg (r Te THE coum .DI Tr .mmE was m ORIGxNAL- CIVIL umne, : s-Bma. Hma COURT cg. BICAM T V ‘ n' w luv» M r AN ' $ WW Wm, f‘wmg? \ U 1 1 03-2005 Shri Uttam Pandey, counsei fi>r the appellants. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Counsel with Smt. Usha Chandrakar counsel for the respondent. This appeal has been filed by the appeliants under order 43 Rule 1 ( r) of the CPC against the order d ated 06-1 0-2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Durg by which the a plication for temporary injunction tiled byvthe appellants has been rejecte 2. Case of the appellants is tha they entered in to an agreement with the respondent for sale of t e suit property for a consideration of Rs. 24,00,000/- and in view o the same he had already paid sum of Rs. 9 00 000/ in cash. injunction‘was-filed by the ap ellants which vks, allowed by the trial arlier an application for temporary Court on the condition that he respondent shall not alienate the property provided the appell nts deposit a sum of Rs. 15.00,000/- in the trial Court. In compl ance of the said order the appellants deposited a sum of Rs. 16, 2,5OOI- in the form of UTI certificate and according to the counsel for the which was encashable on d appellants. 3. However, learned Court be recorded a finding that condition of the order of temporary inj ction has not been fulfilled as the plaintiffs had not deposited e ordered sum in compliance of the order dated 13-07-2001. The appellants preferred MA No. XI—HC#78 d l ”366 kx w m W (WE?) W; “am w 11w aw umwm EWWw am mfan%W §f§$W $ 3%? a~‘n‘c‘§¥r 1 ‘1 XI—HC 78 Emmi? WW fia‘amgg 787/2001 before this Court ainst the above order and thesame was disposed of by this Co rt by order dated 21-01—2003 and on the prayer of both the parti s the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for amicable settleme texpeditiously. The above order was passed .in pursuance of th compromise application which was registered as LA. No. 126/2 03 tiled by both the parties. Learned counsel for the app llants submits that aner passing of this ‘ order the appellants were. eady and willing to compromise by accepting Rs. 9,00,000/-' w h interest which was payable within three months from the date f passing of order dated 21-01-2003 but the respondent did nott m up in the Lok Adaiat and therefore compromise could not be e tered in to , Subsequently, another application for temporary i junction was tiled by the appellants before the trial Court and this application a prayer was made that the respondent / defen nt be restrained from transferring the suit property in favour of o hers. This application was however rejected by the trial Court by he impugned order on the ground that the appiication for tempor injunction was already allowed by order dated 06-07-2001 an subsequent order dated 31 -07-2001 passed by the court below hich have not been set aside by the High Court and thus they a e still in force and therefore the fresh order of temporary injunction can not be passed again by the Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the spondenff‘d g a mgmagfiaw) am 31w yaw ' Vmwa‘ag‘am r1“ WhWi§NW €<aa1f§a11m€13r XE-HC 73 @EWW m 2w Ea W, W113; mama? a. , .....z.;...9..3¢.>g W W (iafaaw) WW a. 2m féz3§$ mm WmWaTrQQ? ._ 3-— W151? WW % m? fvrgr: transferred the property through registered sale deed vide ration of Rs. 14,00,000l- and the transfer deed has been im ounded by registering authorities for deficiency in the stamp d . He further submits that in the circumstances the transfer e ected by the respondent / defendant vide annexure A-14 is hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore the de endant should be restrained from alienating the propertyas th impugned order passed by the Court below is erroneous, annexure A-14‘for a consi On the other hand learned c unsel for the respondent submits that he was already willing to a ide by the compromise and he had deposited the amount of co promise along with interest before the trial Court vide Annexure A-1 and the impugned order suffers from no illegality as there was n temporary injunction in favour of the appellants and as such the c efendant was at liberty to transfer his property which has already been done. He further submits that the instant appeal has become infructuous as the property in question already stands transferred and the only dispute to be adjudicated is sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid by the purchaser of the property. l have heard counsel for the parties. 0n the previous dates this court on the prayer of the parties enabled them to explore the possibility of compromise in terms ’of e u XI HF 78 aw? w Wm“ w a?!%‘:$'i W W wmw em was (Wei may-zw‘bxemw ¥ Lk Wm}?W 1% fsw’i W. ‘ $7 aa‘fa‘q a'i‘ié‘xa‘ the earlier compromise where by the appellanis had agreed to accept Rs. 9,00,000/- ale instructions from the party it not possible and therefore the facts and subsequent development in Taking in to consideration th the case and the admitted po ition that the properly in question has already been transferred by the respondent l defendant to some other third party and the re istered sale deed has already been executed and possession of he property has been handed over to the third person, i am of th opinion that the instant appeal has become infructuous with thel pse of time Even otherWIse, ldo not t'nd any mfrmlty m the imp gned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for ngwith interest but after seeking was submitted that compromise was matter is being heard on merits. mporary injunction inasmuch as the court below has already pas ed the order of temporary injunction on 06-07.2001 With the co dition enumerated therein and by subsequent order dated 31 07-2003 posmon has been further clarifed and the said order i still enforce the Court below has not committed any illegality in r iecting the application for temporary in the result the appeal has no merit and the same is liable for dismissal Accordingly, the a peal is dismissed 10.‘ g Sdl— \l Dhnrendra Mishra ’F’ (iim Judge wiearwstfiwe mew {t i073 03 injunction fled by the appella ts i