Harbhajan Singh vs Baldev Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM NO. 6391-CII OF 2013

Allowed, as prayed for.

MAIN CASE

Defendant-Harbhajan Singh has filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the trial Court and judgment dated 01.11.2012 passed by the lower Appellate Court thereby allowing application filed by respondent-plaintiff Baldev Singh for temporary injunction and thereby restraining the defendant-petitioner from alienating the suit property in favour of any person except the plaintiff till final disposal of the suit.

Plaintiff has filed suit for possession of the suit land measuring 34 kanals 8 marlas by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.10.2007 allegedly executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 6 lacs per acre and received Rs. 20 lacs as earnest money. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, but the defendant committed breach of the agreement. The plaintiff claimed temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land during pendency of the suit.

The defendant contested the suit and the application for temporary injunction and controverted the averments made by the plaintiff and denied the execution of the impugned agreement. The defendant alleged that he had dealings with two commission agents and had been taking loans from them and they had been getting signatures of defendant on blank papers as security and the said papers have been converted into impugned agreement to sell and also some other agreements to sell in favour of the said commission agents and their partners.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner never executed the impugned agreement in favour of respondent-plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to temporary injunction. The contention cannot be accepted. The defendant-petitioner has admitted his signatures on the impugned agreement by his above-mentioned pleadings. According to the impugned agreement, out of total sale consideration of about Rs. 26 lacs, the defendant has received Rs. 20 lacs as earnest money. The plaintiff filed the suit on 28.05.2008 i.e. immediately after the target date i.e. 20.05.2008, stipulated in the agreement for execution of sale deed. The plaintiff is contesting the suit for the last more than five years. His rights cannot be defeated by permitting the petitioner to alienate the suit land during the pendency of the suit. It is correct that any alienation by the defendant during pendency of the suit shall be hit by lis pendens, but nevertheless, it would create complications and multiplicity of litigation.

Counsel for the petitioner also stated that respondent-plaintiff has already led his evidence. Consequently the ball is now in the court of defendant-petitioner himself to get early conclusion of the suit. Keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances, I find that temporary injunction has been rightly granted by the Courts below in favour of the petitioner. Discretion exercised in this regard by the Courts below does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on merits of the suit.