HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. .' HOITBLB SHI2I JUSTICB VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA MISCBLLAlffBOUS APPEALWO. 1091/2005 L APPELLANTS; Plawtiffs ^ 1) Poouam Chaiid Jam, aged about 45 years, S/o SIni Bhanwarlal Jaia (Loda)^ r/o Geeta Nagar, Raipur, 2) Sajitosh T^va-ri, aged about 37 yeai's, S/o^hri Pratohulal Sharma, r/o CWfifcey-Coloiiy, Raip-ar versus Resiiosadessts Defeiidajats 1) Suneel Baid, aged about 37years, S/o Sfari Bhaiiwarlal Baia (Jam)^ Y/O Sadar Bazar, Mungeli, District Bilaspui', 2) Smt Neelima Shejina^ w/o. Shri Pramod Slianna, (Revenue Inspector], r/o, Azad Cliowk, Raipur, 3) Smt. Shakri Shaj-ma^ Wife of Shri Suiiil Sharaaa, r/o, Az^id chowk, Raipur, 4) Smt. Savita@ Chetna, Wife ofShri D.K. Tiwari, Through Shri R.P. Sharma, Teacher, Durg. PRK8BWT: Mr, B,P, Sharma, Counsel for the appellaiits, None for respondcntNo. 1. SIiri Akhil Mislira, Counsel for rcspondents No. 2, 3 aiid 4. ORDBR (Dated 20/04/2006) This appeai is directed against fhe order clated 2.8.2005 passed by District Jiidge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 11- A/2005 whereb}7 dissJlowiag the appMcation fUed by appeUajits under Onler 39, Rules 1 & 2 of fhe Code of Civil Procedurc for oftemporary iiijunction respondents, ^ x 1 <'•' 2, Defeuclant^respondent No. 1 eutered iiito an agreement wifh appenants/plamttffs to sell the suit laad aiid received eamest money Rs, 80,000/n (Rupees E^hty Thousaiid) towarcls the sale consideratioii. Written agrcement was executed ou 3,8.2003. Parties to fhe agreement were agreed that respondent No. 1 will execute the sele deed wifhin a period ofthree snouths from fhe date of agreeznent. AppeUants were always rcady ajid wffliiig to perforei fheir part ofcontract by payiag the balaace coiisideration for obtaiaing fhe registercd sale deed^ but respoudent No, 1 did not fulfiU his obligations regardiag demarcation etc^ even sjter senrice of notice he failed to execute the registered deed, On fhe other haiid, respondeiit No, 1 by registercd sale deed dated 7.1.2004 mid 22.3.2004, afienated the suit laad in favour of defendants /respoiidents No, 2 to 4, fherefore^ appellsjits mstitated a suit for specific performauce of the contract and also flled an appllcation for graat of teniporer)" liijunction. 3) The defendaiits/respondents opposed the suit Defeiidajits/respoiidents ui reply pleaded that aJter exp^ of fhe due period for execution of the deed fhe agreement to dated 3/8/2003 lapsed and after 4/11/2003 it ha.s no bmding effects, The area ofKhasra No, 141/1 is 40,000 sq, ft, out ofwhich only 8160 sq, ft, has been sold to rcspondentsfdefendants No, 2 to 4 ajid rcmaming laiid is stffl m possession and ownership of defendaiit^ rcspondent No, 1. The appellaats were never wfflmg rcady to perform their part, even after notice was issued by theni after a lapse of 10 monfhs. Defendaiits^ respondents No, 2 to 4 ajre boiia fide piirchasers for diie consideration aiid are m possessioii oflajid purchased by them. € F\ C ( 4) L^anied Court below held fh.at Khasra No, 141/1 bearing 40,000 sq. ft., out ofwhich only 8,800 Sq.ft ofthe laud relates to agreement to sell, To identify flie suit laiid, coxnplete description has uot been shown iii the agreenieiit except that of fhe tejid shaU be 110 sq, ft towanls roadside, Respondent No, 1 pleaded that fhe land sold to defendaiite/respondents No, 2 to 4 is different fherefore, a question arises, as to whefher the laiid sold to defendants/respoudents No, 2 to 4 is a part of fhe suit laiid, Further respondeiit No,l has alleged fhat prior to service ofnotice he sold the lajids, fhercforc, there is a prmia facie case ia favour offhe appellmits, The suit land has uot been giveii iii possession to appeUejits by fhe defeiidejit/respoiident No, 1, The suit lajid -also not been got demarcated, Defeiidaats No, 2 to 4 have purchased pail:^the land ofKhasra No, 141^1 }3j registered sale deeds, Their naoies have been recoided m rcvenue records and fhe laiid has been diverted for other fhaa agricultural pu^ose, For construction of buildiag necessary permission has be^n obtsined by one of fhe respondeuts Smt. Neellma Sharaia. Therefore^ so far as fhe priiiciple of balance of hiconvenience and iiTepa-rable loss is concemed, that does not find favour of tiie plaiatiffs/appeUaats, •/ ^ 5) A copy of fh.e agreement to sale is minexed along witii fhe appeal, From penisal of fhe agrcement, it is evident fliat flie agreement took place between flie appellants respoiideiit No, 1 vide which 8800 so^ ft, of haviag 110 sq, ft. frontage from Khasra No. 141/1 is sold for a consideratiou of Rs, 100/- only. It appears ftiat there is some mistake but tin it is rcctified fhe document is to be rcad as it is. Furfher, from penisal of the document^ it is evident fhat the sale deed was to be executed by the respoudent No. 1 m favour of that person whose name will be suggested by the appeUaiit. That clearly discloses that appellants werc uot bona fide piirchasers but,. towards fhe biisiness of property deatmg such aji agreement has been obtaiaed^ fherefore^ if oiiy loss is caused to fheni because ofiion- fut&Ument of fhe traiisaction or for brcach of tiie agreenieiit fliat caa be assessed lience, it caanot be accepted that fhe appeUante shall suffer irreparable loss. The agreemeut itself is defective aad ambigiious. Proper and complete description to identify the laad has not beeu inentioned. Laad is not ia possession of fhe appeUaats and the agreement iteelf exposes fhat it has been got executed toward^^the busmess of property dealmg. Therefore^ when respondents/defendants No. 2 to 4 who have purchased part of fhe land out of Khasra No, 141/1 from owuer m possessiou of that laiid ajid are m possession fhereof Ifthey are restrained on the basis of flie sjbresaid agreement it will cause substantial loss as also incouvenience to fhem,, thercfore,, fhe priaciple of iiTeparable loss aad balaace of iaconvenience finds favour of fhe defenclaiits/respoudents No, 2 to 4 mstead^fappellants, c,. 6) Leanied Lower Coiirt after due apprcciatioii of fhe materieJ avsilable on rcconi conTctly held fhat principle ofbaJmice of mcoiwemeiice irreparaljle loss does not fmd favour of the appeUants, fherefore, refused to graat mterim mjmiction iii fheir favour, did not comniit any error which rsiay caU for any mterference by fhis Court, In fhe resiilt fhe appeal is Mable to be dismissed ajnd is accordmgly dismissed, I.A, No, 1339,/2006 stands disposed of 7) Lcanied trial Court shaU decide tfae siiit withoiit beiag mfluenced by any of fhe obsen?ations made hereisi and sliell dispose it of as early as possible preferably wifhia six moiTttisJ^ 1 the date of this oider. I V.K.Shrivastava Judge kvr i