High Court · 2025

Mr. Sagar Kot har i, Advocat e for t he appellant .

2. This Appeal from Order challenges t he j udgm ent and order dat ed 12.08.2025 rendered by t he learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) , Tehri Garhwal, in Original Suit No. 21 of 2025, whereby t he applicat ion for grant of t em porar y inj unct ion preferred by t he plaint iff/ appellant was declined. inst it ut ed inj unct ion against filed, which cam e The brief fact s of t he case are t hat t he 3. seeking a appellant per m anent t he respondent . Along wit h t he said suit , an applicat ion under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. was t o be regist ered as Paper No. 6C2. The learned t he part ies, t rial court , aft er hearing rej ect ed t he said applicat ion by order dat ed 12.08.2025 holding t hat t he appellant had not approached t he Court wit h clean hands r egar ding and had suppressed execut ion dat ed t he 18.02.2025. t he agreem ent unregist er ed Lear ned counsel t hat

4. t he appellant t he agreem ent dat ed cont ended 18.02.2025 insufficient ly st am ped could not have been consider ed by t he t rial Court in view of Sect ions 35 and 49 of t he I ndian St am p Act , 1899 and t he I ndian Regist rat ion Act , 1908 respect ively. I t is furt her subm it t ed t hat t he t rial Court com m it t ed a grav e error relying upon t he said inadm issible docum ent while r ej ect ing t he inj unct ion applicat ion. Lear ned counsel argued t hat t he regist er ed agreem ent t o sell execut ed bet w een t he subsist ing part ies was a st at ed it nor expressly docum ent , w hich has not been challenged befor e any com pet ent for um . He subm it s t hat even if t he respondent alleges t hat such agreem ent is a result of fraud, he has inst it ut ed any separat e pr oceeding challenging issued any st at ut ory not ice t o t hat effect . He subm it s t hat t he plaint iff/ appellant willingness t o pay t he sale consider at ion of ₹50,00,000/ - wit hin sev en days of t he cont ract ual fulfilling respondent obligat ions. How ever, t he respondent has act ed dishonest ly wit h int ent ion of defeat ing t he appellant ’s lawful right s. I t was t hus ar gued t hat t he lear ned t rial Court failed t o appreciat e t hat t he appellant had m ade out a prim a facie case, t hat balance of convenience lay in his favour, and t hat he would suffer int erim prot ect ion was denied. irreparable inj ury t he r elief equit able

5. t he Upon car eful considerat ion of subm ission advanced by lear ned counsel for t he appellant and aft er per using t he papers available on r ecor d, t his Court finds t hat t he learned t rial Cour t has not com m it t ed any m at erial illegalit y or perv er sit y in rej ect ing t he t em porary inj unct ion applicat ion. The finding t hat t he appellant suppr essed t he m at erial fact of execut ion of t he agreem ent dat ed 18.02.2025 disent it les him from t he discr et ionary t em porar y inj unct ion. Furt her m ore, it is an adm it t ed posit ion r espondent belongs t o t he Scheduled Cast e com m unit y, wher eas t he plaint iff falls wit hin t he General Cat egor y. t he st at ut ory bar cont ained under Sect ion 157- A of t he U.P. Zam indari Abolit ion and Land Refor m s Act , a per son belonging t o a Scheduled Cast e is prohibit ed from t r ansferring his holding by m eans of sale, gift , m ort gage, or lease in favour of a per son not belonging t o a Scheduled Cast e, except wit h t he prior sanct ion of t he Collect or. Consequent ly, t he agreem ent t o sell in quest ion is not legally enfor ceable, as t he r espondent could not I n view of t hat t he have lawfully execut ed such an agreem ent in favour of t he plaint iff wit hout obt aining t he t he com pet ent aut horit y. r equisit e prior perm ission fr om

6. Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of Dalpat Kum ar and anot her Vs. Prahlad Singh and ot her s, report ed in ( 1992) 1 SCC 719, held t hat a person seeking equit able relief m ust com e wit h clean hands and m ust convenience, and likelihood of irreparable loss. Suppression or m isrepr esent at ion of m at erial fact s bar s such equit able r elief. balance prim a case,

7. Sim ilarly, in t he case of Seem a Ar shad Zaheer & ot hers Vs. Municipal Cor porat ion of Great er Mum bai & ot her s, r eport ed in ( 2006) 5 SCC 282, Hon’ble Supr em e Court has held t hat int erlocut ory inj unct ions ar e t he t o be grant ed m er ely because plaint iff has a prim a facie case, but t he Court m ust also be sat isfied t hat balance of convenience and inj ury ar e clearly m ade out . irreparable I n t he case in hand, lear ned t rial Court 8. right ly exam ined t he conduct of t he part ies in det ail and found t hat t he appellant did not act wit h bona int ent ions. Exercising j udicial discret ion, t he Court declined relief t he appellant , as equit able rem edies r equire fair and honest conduct . favour of

9. I n light of t he aforesaid discussion and guided by t he set t led principles of law, t his Court finds no reason t o int erfer e wit h t he im pugned order dat ed 12.08.2025 passed by t he learned Civ il Judge ( Senior Division) , Tehri Garhwal. The appeal, being devoid of m erit , is accor dingly dism issed.

10. Ther e shall be no order as t o cost s. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

06.11.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45b a3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AA DAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL