Avtar Singh vs Lakhbir Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff-Avtar Singh has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition assailing judgment dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned additional District Judge, Patiala. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against defendant-respondent Lakhbir Singh for possession of suit land by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.06.2008 Annexure P-1 allegedly executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant allegedly received Rs. 8,00,000/- as earnest money. The defendant allegedly failed to perform his part of the agreement although the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land in any manner.

The defendant-respondent resisted the suit and the application and pleaded that he had raised loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the agreement as security for repayment thereof with interest. The defendant paid Rs. 3,80,000/- to the plaintiff and is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- with interest.

Learned trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2010 Annexure P-2 allowed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendant from alienating the suit land in any manner till final disposal of the suit. However, appeal preferred by defendant against the said order has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment dated 15.11.2011 and thereby plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction stands dismissed subject to the condition that if the defendant alienates the suit property during pendency of the suit, he shall make recital in the deed of alienation about pendency of the suit and shall intimate the trial Court within one week of the alienation. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the parties reiterated their respective versions. However, at this stage, there is nothing on record to depict that the defendant had executed the agreement as security for repayment of loan. On the other hand, execution of the agreement by the defendant stands admitted. Receipt of Rs. 8,00,000/- by defendant from the plaintiff has also been admitted. There is nothing on record to even prima facie depict that the defendant has repaid Rs. 3,80,000/- to the plaintiff. There is also nothing on record to depict that the agreement was executed as security for repayment of the loan. On the other hand, the plaintiff has a very strong case inasmuch as execution of agreement as well as receipt of earnest money by the defendant stands admitted. Consequently the defendant has prima facie no right to alienate the suit land to anybody else except the plaintiff during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff has made out all the three necessary ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate court has committed grave error in dismissing application of plaintiff for temporary injunction. If the defendant alienates the suit land during pendency of the suit, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to plaintiff and would create many complications. Prima facie, in view of admitted agreement Annexure P-1, the defendant has no right to sell the suit land to anybody except to the plaintiff. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned judgment Annexure P-3 passed by lower appellate Court is set aside and order Annexure P-2 passed by the trial Court is restored. The defendant stands restrained from alienating the suit land to anybody except to plaintiff during pendency of the suit. Nothing in this order shall have any bearing on merits of the suit.