:.•.-...,,;,^;,^:.^: ^ Singl&Bench (^) \ IN THfa HJGH CQtIRT OF JIitilCATlJMi AT BILA^PlJS^G) MISC.APPEAL]TO^1.Ja006 (APPEAL UNDER ORJ5ER XLHl RXJLE KT) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUREy :^ .^PPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS ,»* ^'y ...%<y ^y ...•-:y>: RESPQNEENTS DEFENDANTS 1. ivi Rfelwani, S/o L^te Trilokchand Relwani aged about 21 years, Profession. - Business 2. cSmt. Asha Devi Relwam Wife of Late Trilokchand Relwam Aged about 39 Years, Professi<xi Housewife Both are R/o ViUage Bilha,P.S.-BilhaP.S.& Tahsil Bilha, Dislriet - Bilaspur(CG) Versus Saxifcosh Kaushik S/o Baburam K.ausliik, Aged about 37 years Profession - Teacheer, R/o Chakar- bhata, Tahsil- BiBaa, Disliict- Bilaspur (C<5) And Om Nagar Jarhabfaafha, Bilaspur Tahsil & DisteictBilaspur (CG) State of C3ihattsi11iarh Throfi^h- Collector, Bilaspur (CG). la!w*SEats'^^^^S.»^ -.—.___.__._A_ XI-HC-78 <3-ccj *<(+1<TT$h<4|c»» •^l^Krt^, ^Tn^4l<o, [c)dW^< B.<.A^^O:./lolMy ^: 200 C {?T<4S(th (<?^3^^") W^T^T^Jch cPTTW^T5bH|cb h"NB- / ) ?^T^K^N3:n^T 13-11-2006 iry4"cti per^on tHe 04-^3 Shri Vishnu Koshta. learned Hecrd on admission. This Miscellaneous Appeal is 2006 passed by the IVth Additiona( Suit No.14-^/2006 whereby the a^ C.P.C. for grant of temporcry alienating suit land to any other It is not in dispute that executed an agreement dated Number 628/2, Area-2.5 Acres, si| Nuniber-22, Revenue Circle- Sokril the plaintiff for consideration of essential condition of the flgreeme|rrt' the piaintiffs shall also pa/ a sum| remaining consideration shall be Registry. The plaintiffs/appellants contract which is Civil Suit Number^ 39 Rule-1 & 2 of C.P.C. was filed fc|y defendant Sontosh Kaushik was other person. Defendant Santofih Kaushikl thot as per terms of the <greem4nt <|ounsel for the appellants. cni^Fcn41-i HnToff ^* te^ <r3i^i< ^ ^^rf^T3TT^T i |directed against the order dated 02-09- District Judge, District-Bilaspur in Civil ^plication under Order-39 Rule-1 A 2 of yi|inction restraining the defendant from was dismissed. def&ndant No.l Santosh Kaushik had .-q3-2006 to sell c^riculture Jcmd IQiasara ruated at Village-Amsena ftxtwwi Hatka Tahsil-Takhatpur, District-Bilaspyr to l^s.9 Lakh. It is atso not disputed that an to seil the agriculture land was that of Rs. 1 Lakh on 04-04-2006 and the |?aid within 3 months crt- the time of [filed a suit for specific performance of |al4-A/2006- An application under Order- the plaintiffs on the ground that the t(hfi"9 to alienote the suit land ta some Rts, resisted the application and contended the plaintiffs did not pay a sum of Z-. XI-HC-78 *11+1<TT»)+1|ch 3^ '^l^ld'4, ^y<l<o, fc|dl^^< ^-.H:A;^^.l^.tcf. •qy^.......*...^;..•.*.... (S) 3T^?r q^T(<5^f3^ET) CT^Hf^rf^TT^ cT^T3TTcST$h^|cb ^RTTW ^f?cf W^T —.^-— thfct Relvchi other Rd.l Lakh to the defendant on Rs. 1 Lakh wos returned by him rescinded. It was al^o contended the defendant and one Satish in the nome of the ptaintiffs. It wa^ not alienating the suit land to any The learned IVth Additional plaintiffs hwe failed to establish a| were ready and witling to perform nothing to show that the plaintiffs| the defendant on 04-04-2006 as into consideration the fact that plaintlffs had agreed to seii agric| whose name the defendant would took note of the fact that the through counsel, did not mention defendant on 04-04-2006 in term4 there being no prima focie case in| under Order-39 Rule-1 <& 2 of C.P.C. | Hwing heard learned couns^l the considered opinion that this di^missed at the 5tcge of adniissio|' contract, the burden is on the pl< 04-04-2006 their p^r chi^f<n41-i WT^ff ^ te^t <r3i^i< ^^rf^T3TT^T due to which eornest money of ^o the plaintiff and the cwitract was the agreement was ex&cuted between ajni who had got the agreement executed aldo contended that the defendant wces person. District Judge, Bilaspur held that -rtie I prima facie case and to show that they part of the contract since there was |had deposited a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh with terms of the agreement- It also took as per terms of the cgreement the ilture suit land to any other person in to get the sale deed executed. It also ijt'iffs, in its notice sent to the defendant a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh was paid to the of the flgreement. On these premises, [fwour of the plaintiffs the application Iwas dismissed. ^l for the appellants/plaintiffs/I am of Miscellcyieous Appecil desewes to be i. In a suit for specific performance of intiffs to shcw Ihat they were always wolnt plain|tiffs, tlbat XI-HC-78 *41+1^1 ShHT^t 7ST ^l^Krl^, ^Tfl^^l^, fadl^^< .^.-..^;..^.0\10J^^ 200 (, 3TT^?T^RW (l{c|I^c<^)£T) ^TI^T ^)T f^TW ^TT3TT^T9b^i<=h \^ ^^ ^// ?^TTW ^Tf?cr w^r -^—2» ready and willing to perform their with the essential terms of the corltract. the strer^th of latches on the par^ that the pldntiffd had failed to dep|osit which wos an essential condition learned counsel for the appellants/^laintiffs has not been paid so far. The conditjion defendant would be liable to execute desired by the plaintiffs also render^s In this view of the matter, tt Additional District Judge, Bilaspur of the plaintiffs disentitles the plai|ntiffs favour cannot be faulted with. The not call for any interference in which being devoid of merit js dismi^sed In view of above. M.(C.).P.NoJ disposed of. Certified eopy as per rules. ct)i<4f<n411ri H\H^\i ^ te^ <r3i^i< ^3Tf^T3:[T^T part of the contract and had complied r|tract. The pldntiffs cannot succeed on of the defendant. It is not in dispirte i|osit a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh on 04-04-2006 ^f the agreement. Shri Vishnu Koshta, does not dispute that this sum stipuloted in the agreement that the |e the sale deed in fwour of any person the ogreement vague. le finding recorded by the learned IVth |t"hat absence of a prima facie in favour to a temporary iryunction in their |mpigned order is well merited aml does Miscellaneous Appeal No.1014/2006 at the stege of admission. 1862/2006 for 9rant of stoy olso stands this Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O. r-