SBCMA No.1236/2008 Badriram Jakhad Vs. Narayan Ram 1 SBCMA No.1236/2008 Badriram Jakhad Vs. Narayan Ram DATE OF ORDER : - 19.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Rameshwar Hedau, for the appellant. Mr.RK Thanvi, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 13.8.2008 by which the trial court in civil misc case no.48/2008 dismissed the appellant's application for grant of injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the suit for specific performance of contract and injunction. According to plaintiff himself there is contract for purchase of the property which is dated 16th Nov., 1994 and it is admitted that this contract is oral agreement. The consideration was paid of Rs.1,40,000/- for that also, neither there is receipt nor it was paid by cheque. According to learned counsel for the appellant,the appellant's possession is admitted. However, the respondent obtained a frivolous ex-parte decree and wants to dispossess the appellant from the property in dispute. SBCMA No.1236/2008 Badriram Jakhad Vs. Narayan Ram 2 The appellant's application for setting aside ex-parte decree was rejected by the trial court. However, its appeal is pending before the court. Since it is a case of specific performance of contract of the year 1994 for which suit has been filed in the year 2008 and there is no documentary evidence evidencing agreement for sale nor there is written proof of making payment of huge amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant and the affidavit of one of the alleged partner of the defendant supporting plaintiff is of no consequence. If the trial court has refused the injunction after taking note of these facts, this count finds no illegality in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Panjab and Harayana High Court delivered in the case of Hans Raj & Anr. Vs. Banta Ram & ors reported in 2007(4) CCC 693 (P&H) wherein it has been held that prospective vendee is entitled to protect his possession in part performance of the agreement to sell. The said case has no application to the facts of this case. At this stage, the plaintiff prima facie failed to substantiate SBCMA No.1236/2008 Badriram Jakhad Vs. Narayan Ram 3 his contention by any cogent evidence, may it be of prima facie nature. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-