Civil Revision No. 7003 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7003 of 2011 Date of decision. 16.11.2011 Dev Singh .... Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Singh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by Dev Singh, defendant against the judgment dated 01.08.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Garhshankar allowing the application of Sukhwinder Singh, plaintiff/respondent for ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been upheld. Sukhwinder Singh, respondent had brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating in any manner land measuring 52 kanals 14 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Chahalpur, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur to any person except the plaintiff and committing breach of terms and conditions of agreement of sale dated 27.04.2010. He has set up agreement of sale dated 27.04.2010, vide which the land in question has been agreed to be Civil Revision No. 7003 of 2011 --2-- sold by Dev Singh in his favour. He has claimed that as per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed has to be executed on or before 26.04.2014 on receipt of balance sale consideration. According to him, the defendant is now threatening to sell the land to some other person at higher price and he has sought to restrain him to do so. The defendant had claimed the agreement of sale to be a false, frivolous and fabricated document. According to him, he is a Non- Resident Indian, who is illiterate and knows only to sign in Punjabi language. According to him, in April,2010, he agreed to mortgage his land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained his signatures on the document, claiming the same to be papers for mortgage. He has claimed that he signed the papers in good faith and the plaintiff has fabricated the agreement of sale on those papers. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Garhshankar allowed the application vide order dated 07.03.2011 and restrained the defendant-petitioner from alienating the suit property in favour of anyone other than the plaintiff. Appeal carried by the defendant failed before learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment dated 01.08.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the defendant has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri H.N.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Civil Revision No. 7003 of 2011 --3-- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agreement of sale is a forged and fabricated document. According to him, the petitioner is an illiterate person, who had faith in the respondent and as he was in need of money, he wanted to mortgage his property with the respondent. According to him, taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of the petitioner, the respondent created an agreement of sale in his favour. He has further submitted that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which was received as mortgaged money has also been returned through an attesting witness of the alleged agreement. According to him, this compromise was effected before Deputy Superintendent of Police and now no right is left in the land in question in favour of the respondent. According to him, learned courts below have not considered these aspects in the correct perspective and have, therefore, erred in granting and maintaining the ad-interim injunction. The document on the basis of which the suit has been filed, is an agreement of sale. It may be possible that the petitioner wanted to mortgage his property and the respondent took benefit of his illiteracy and got created an agreement of sale. However, the agreement of sale would show a prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. If the defendant was creating mortgage, he should have taken some person from his family for the purpose of overseeing the transaction to avoid such eventuality. Civil Revision No. 7003 of 2011 --4-- The compromise, which is alleged to have been effected before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garhshankar has not come on the record. The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which is said to have been paid to the plaintiff is alleged to have been repaid to the attesting witness of the agreement of sale and not to the plaintiff. This amount is said to have been paid to the attesting witness of the agreement against a pronote. Such payment against pronote cannot be taken as a payment under a compromise under which the agreement of sale was cancelled. These circumstances clearly show that the plaintiff has a prima-facie case in his favour and the defendant, who is prima facie shown to have agreed to sell the land in question to the plaintiff, is not entitled to sell the same to anyone else . The learned courts below do not seem to have committed any illegality in exercising their discretion in passing the impugned orders. The revision petition is, therefore, found to have no merit and is dismissed. 16.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE