‘APPELLANT : PLAINTIFF gw/TTAM CHAND LUNIYA, Aged about 50 years, S/o. Late Shri Pannalal Luniya, R/o.: Halwai Lane, Rajnandgaon, Distt.: Rajnandgaon (CG) ‘ M.A.No.: g6; /2006 @ $ie§€nch N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE‘|N CHHATh'ISGARH AT BILASPUR Versus ESPONDENTS : EFEEgDANTs 4 Q/ (/L) ROSHANLAL VERMA, ‘ " Aged 40 years, S/o.: Guha Ram Verma, ‘ R/0.: Village — Sahaspur, Dalli RI Circle, ' Ghumka, Tah.& Distt.: Rajnarldgaon (CG) $ (2) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, / Through the COLLECTOR, Rajnandgaon (C.G) M y APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 R (1) (r l CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE LI n$ VI .XI-HC—78 mm mm,m,m . M- A ‘ “3 o‘o.o00‘~o¢OO"oooQ" W 200C WW(W) mam ammamfa; mmwm $4.1 Qizeee Shri Manoj Paranjpe, bathed counse! for the appeiEant. Shri Anand Shukia, iearn Wiih the conseni of the p; 1 The appel!_ant/plain%iff ha daied 6.5.2006 passgd in Civii Judge! Ragnandgaon whereby under Grder 3E3 RUJés 1 8: 2 03" Temgwrary in}unciien has beer referred to as per iheir descrifaik WW§WW » %;aq%rr3n%$ /fvVV The plaintiff flied a suét agreemenf with respect i0 ihe 5d counsel for the respondent N0.1. mies,,the mater is heard finally. s preferred this appear against the order Suit No. 2-A/G8 by First Additrona} Drstrist the apprica‘cien cf the appeiiant/piaintrh‘ the Corrie of Civii Procedure for grant of rejected. (Parties hereinafter shai! be m before the tries Court). fer specific performance of the contract suit iand with the avermente that piaintii‘t and defendarrt No. t entered int) a ccetract agreemem dated 1.5.7.2(393 t0 sell the suit tend bearing Khas vitiage Sahasraur, for a whet: agreement wag again entered set? the tend bearing Khasra No 'a No. 2’iS/t, area H32 acres situated at eration 0t Re. 76,QQO/—. A Suttsewuent .4 nto between the parties on 30.7.2003 to h 218,12, area 1&1 acres situated at viiiage gahaspur, fer e consideration cf Rs. 76.000L. The ptaintitr‘ hae paid the ‘iutt consideration at the time of Said agreements and the defendant No. i premised to execute the sate d5 ed in the name of the pereone a3 direoted i i i i i t.. .XI-HC—78 3am,m,W Imam) g wwwm by the piamtiff and aiso han' maintif'f. it is also averred that suit and as the same was delh part performance of the con‘ execute the sale deed despite t notices and hae fateeiv dent ed the transaction. The defenetants are pmeerty and therefore, tn the afotesaict con‘terrtpiating t0 tranSxer .t £the Citcumstances, tney be restregned from alienating or otherwise creating third partv inteteet over the suit propetty. The elefendent Ne. a A initinction, denied the execution of the saie deed and further denied the recetgat of any considetation. newspaper that he proposect event right to transtet his own it roperty. it is admitted tact thz rt ttit the impugned order i'egeoting the apiattoatton of the piaintit‘t for te ttiat Court, the oiatntitf did not Court desoéte being catted considering the oteadtngs 0t th a respective parties and further considering r i t WW§WW %aqf%wsn%v ted over the ortgénal Rin Pustika to the the piaintiff i3 atready ih pceseeeion of the erec! to him at the time of agreements as a tact, however, defendant Ne. 1 did not 1 )eing catted ueon to cto the same vide Eegat e W n repiy to the application for temporary He admitted that he advertised in the to seii the tend and ciatmed that he nae nporary tnjunetion has been passed by the ptoduce originat agreements of sate in the tpon for the same The Court beiow t ..5‘.4.f:..$.§ 11mm WW (WW) XI—HC—78 WW,WW,Falaragt mm§moA‘¢o&‘ Wm (W) a1 200¢ mmwm the fact thai the maintiff has no i0 iransfer of the suit property e fiiing ‘i‘he Same‘ has arrived att preve a prima fade case in i applicaiion for temporaw mjunc Learned coLmSe! for the A’ z-AP. . Ll a .égn 1" Conn 4- reperied m 1&7 Qabmrasac! Raihore Vs. $iate com$deration for grant of temp case, baiance of conven§9nce maimiff E$ in a posiiian to Shaw arm? the d£~sputad questions eff be left i0 be decided at ih§ ¢om WWW§§Q°rW %aw%wm £iiied i 4-the originai agreements. with respect ven after seeking severe! adjournments for 1e conclusien that the eiaintifi has failed to iis favour and aecordingiy dismiseed the i ion by the impugned erder. i appeiiant reiying upen the judgment 0f 3 iii! § i J Mg in the matter of E5hahkariei a of MP. gm’t othere, argues that the only arary injunction i5 exietence 0f nrima facie and maintenance 0f etatus—quo and it the that there is a serieus queeticn tu be tried acts are diffiwit questiene of iaw, it shouid tiusien of the triai. v Furiher reiying upon the in ihe mai‘er ef Eihanwai imii Few Pmeiucte reported m 2i documenie produced by the pia be decie‘ed ai ihe interiocu‘zq iiijmiciion shcuid be paseed or respective parttes. judgment of the $upreme Court deiivered ietriee Ltoi enci another V1; Wile Ni ff, é; we Aii’t SivQW ‘tEttt it i5 argued that the intir'r‘ is forged or got up documents, cannot rry stage and the orders of temjoorary the basis 0t documents produced by the i i r r i ,, P... \LA TO XI—HC—78 WW,W,W Wm a1 200a mwm WW§WW ' éawm Gr. the oiher hand, learned counse? for defendant N0. 1 reiying upan ihe judgmeni in the maiie‘ar of Radha K§shaii Vs. Lakemira am? oiharg reported in ”WGIEE NE P HT. $15 W03) argued that i‘: has; been held in ‘t’ne above cited ceee thai Where ihe suhf is based an a decument of £n’question and a prayer for injunc’don restraimng the defeindant from imen‘ering with ihe amt preperiy ie made 0n me basis of phe'tocop‘y 0f 'ihe §njunct§on cannot be gramed an evidence which wouid peyeue said agreement, ihe order er” temperanf d there was no prime facie documentary diecreiicmary reiief of injunction e de the Cami i0 grant equiiabie and Reiiance is aEse piecee o: Hm‘g in the mattef of Garibzz Vs the Order 39 Rwee 1 & 2 is a: baeedvon suspicious decument ' i have heard learned c301 perused ihe impugned order. From the impugned order it refiects that the ptaintiff prayed for several adiournments to itie the originai agreements at Sale efthe suit land agreement for saie ef the fend tthie stage. i the order reperted in wgz :i’ti MRWN. 5r-mtimnhan EH 3 wherein it has been heid that i equitable retiei and Where the ciaim i3 he Court Witt retrain from giving any reiief. nsei for the reepective partiee and have i l l l P.T.O. mm (W) ‘ XI—HC-78 HW,WW,W mm m 200g Wm (W) WWW MWW WWW on one pretext 0:“ other. Hgwe :ver, boih ihe criginai agreemerris 0f sale cauld net be filed tiH passing 0ft he impugned emeL WW§WW §KWW in ihe matta‘ of $hai': '4. required “:33 vacate ’che Sun campara‘tive imonve‘nieme ihai that case. ihe Com? granted g favour cf the piain‘iiff as ihe k grammg temporary inj’unciion it; maiier of Dhai'iwai Industries L couEd esmbiish his case by fiHns Mamkchand in respect of Pan E case, ihe aliegation wa$ ihat fm‘ged! fabr§cated and got up WE rich was seriously disputed by the ptaihth’t. there is ho dispute that the However. ih the instaht case egreemehte of sate have net keen fited by the ptaintiff and the reder § x e: temporary imahctteh has been prayed for sotety on the ground at photocopy of the atieged agreemente There is ho exptanation on the part of the piatntifr’ for not tiiing the original agreements, on the contrary, it aopears that the plaintiff sought time for producing the eame but ultimately oouio‘ not produce and in these Circumstances, the Court below hae iar!a§ ,Rathare (eupra) ihe piaim’iiff was accommodation and considermg the wag like!y m be suffei‘ed by the pmimiff in %qu%t'abEe relief of temporary injurrctien in elance of convenrence was m faveur er .€ the ptaintitf, Similar is the situation in the te‘ (supra) Where the ptaintitf of that case ; certain dowmehts regarding the mark of Itaeata. Gutkha and Superi. in the abeve the documents ‘fited by the ptathtir'r' was XI—HC-78 3EnamRvL§m%F@;%wm§g mm ’ wf’x‘féE? ....... .. a1 200g Wm (W) WWW WWW Eamwmw mmfiwm ésmm x8, For the foregoing reason that the finding of the Court be]! for grant of temperary in}un¢tie _‘ reiymg cm the judgr‘nents 'in ihe (eupra) and Gariba Vs. Haiimkh; be diemieseci at the admission stage iisei‘? and it is accordingiy diemissed, Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge rejected the appiication for temp the maintiff does mt have a eqLjiiable relief of temporarv inju iotion. arary injunctiori by recording a finding that prime facie case which enti‘iies him to s, ithis Court i5 of the considered opinion )w' rejecting the application of the piainiii’f n, is based on correct reasoning. Thus, a matter of Radha Kiehan Vs. Lokendra in (supraL the instant appeai deserves i0 P.T.O.