High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17428 Court No. - 36
Legal Reasoning
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1866 of 2024 Appellant :- M/S Nikhil Infraland Developers Pvt Ltd Agra Respondent :- Hakim Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Dubey Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the defendant-appellant as well as plaintiffs-respondents as well as perused the record on board. 2. Instant First Appeal From Order has been preferred on behalf of the defendant-appellant, having been aggrieved with the order dated 27.5.2024 whereby interim injunction application (paper No. 8-C) filed on behalf of the plaintiffs has been allowed. 3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereinunder, this Court, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, proceeds to decide the instant appeal finally. 4. Perusal of the record evinces that plaintiffs-respondents have filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 20.2.2017 which was allegedly executed by defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiffs. Total sale consideration money was Rs. 55 lacs, out of which 50 lacs has been given as an earnest money and remaining 5 lacs was promised to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The defendant-appellant has filed written statement denying the execution of agreement to sell dated 20.2.2017 and came with the plea that the contents of the documents in question are incorrect inasmuch as the defendant was never intended to execute any agreement to sell. Learned trial court, having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, has allowed the injunction application, vide order dated 27.5.2024, with an observation that parties shall maintain status quo; not to alienate the same in favour of any third person; nature of property shall not be changed and no third party right shall be created over there. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant is a builder and status quo order would severally prejudice his interest. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case of Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs. Maruti Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 229. It is further submitted that proper opportunity to file an objection in injunction application had not been accorded to the defendant. It is further submitted that while deciding the injunction application, learned trial court has not returned any finding with regard to the possession over the property in question. It is next submitted that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, which are essential ingredients, have not been discussed by the trial court as well. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has contended that the suit was filed for the specific performance of contract, therefore, in case, nature of the property is changed, it would prejudice to his interest. It is next submitted that till the decision on the suit, the property in question should be protected. 7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that plaintiffs-respondents have filed suit for specific performance of contract, however, defendant-appellant has denied execution of any such agreement to sell. While deciding the interim injunction applicant, although the learned trial court has mentioned the ingredients of interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, to wit, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, however, no separate discussion has been made by the trial court in this regard. It appears that all the three ingredients have been discussed simultaneously in conclusive paragraph just before the final order. Leaned trial court has simply observed that prima faice case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs, however, there is no observation with regard to balance of convenience and irreparable loss. While deciding the prima facie case, learned trial court has taken into account the agreement to sell, however, made an observation that same has still to be adjudicated upon in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties. No specific finding has been returned by the leaned trial court with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in question. Possession and ownership of the defendant-appellant has not been challenged by plaintiffs- respondents, therefore, there is no intricated title dispute over the property in question between the parties. The defendant- appellant, who is the owner and in possession over the property in question has got right to use and develop his property according to his wishes which would be subject to the final decision of the suit, however, the plaintiffs-respondents in whose favour alleged agreement to sell has been executed has a right to protect the property to the extent that till the pendency of the suit, no third party right is created over there to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 8. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the opinion that it would be suffice to say that till the final adjudication of right, title and interest of the parties over the property in question on the basis of agreement to sell dated 20.2.2017, no third party right shall be created over there to avoid multiplicity of proceeding with respect to the property in question. Needless to say that order of injunction is always subject to the final judgment in the suit. 9. Resultantly, instant appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. The order dated 27.5.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Agra allowing the interim injunction application (paper No. 8-C) filed on behalf of the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 294 of 2023 (Hakim Singh and another vs. M/s Nikhil Infraland Developers Private Ltd.) is partly quashed to the extent so far as it relates to maintaining the status quo and not to change the nature of the land. However, remaining injunction qua not to create third party right and not to alienate the property in question shall remain stand and same is affirmed. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad