Smt. Saroj Sharma vs Sudhir Bhargava and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Smt. Saroj Sharma, by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged orders of both the courts below, thereby declining grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff-petitioner during pendency of the suit. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against respondents-defendants for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2003. Sale deed was to be executed up to 30.06.2003, extended up to 15.11.2003. Possession of the suit land was also delivered to the plaintiff at the time of agreement. Plaintiff alleged that on the date fixed for sale deed, the plaintiff learnt that entries in khasra girdawari depict possession of one Bishan Narain and not of defendants. The plaintiff protested about it to the defendants, who assured the plaintiff to get the khasra girdawari entries corrected and the sale deed would be executed thereafter. However, aforesaid Bishan Narain filed suit against defendant No. 1 and others claiming exclusive possession of the suit land. He also obtained temporary injunction order in that suit. The said suit was however ultimately dismissed on 24.09.2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed this suit.

Defendants asserted that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, although the defendants were ready to execute the sale deed as per agreement. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, vide impugned order dated 01.11.2010, dismissed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide judgment dated 03.12.2010. Aforesaid orders/judgments of both the courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of agreement between the parties, the defendants should be restrained from alienating the suit land during pendency of the suit. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass,1 (2005-1)139 P.L.R. 399 and two judgments of this Court namely Smt. Rita Toor v. Logical Developers Pvt. Ltd.,2 (2010-2)158 P.L.R. 499 and Jeeto v. Joginder Singh and others,3 (2008-3)151 P.L.R. 781.

On the other hand, counsel for respondents contended that the agreement is of the year 2003 and target date for execution of sale deed was also in the year 2003, but the instant suit was filed on 06.02.2010 i.e. more than six years after the expiry of target date stipulated for execution of sale deed, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any temporary injunction.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

Plaintiff''s own case is that the impugned agreement is dated 15.02.2003 and date for execution of sale deed was 30.06.2003, extended up to 15.11.2003, whereas the instant suit was filed on 06.02.2010 i.e. more than six years after the expiry of the target date stipulated for sale deed. The fact that one Bishan Narain had, in the meantime, filed the suit, prima facie did not disentitle the present plaintiff from seeking specific performance of the agreement because claim of Bishan Narain was on the basis of his exclusive possession of the suit land as co-sharer. However, according to the plaintiff, he had taken possession of the suit land from defendants at the time of agreement. Consequently, entries to the contrary in khasra girdawari in favour of Bishan Narain had no bearing on the right of the plaintiff to file suit for specific performance of the agreement. Moreover, the plaintiff, at the time of entering into the agreement, should have perused the entries in revenue record.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant temporary injunction against alienation of suit land by defendants, who would obviously suffer irreparable loss and injury because now the agreement is already nine years old. Defendants cannot be restrained from alienating their land for indefinite period. However, at the same time, necessary direction has to be given to protect the interest of the plaintiff-petitioner. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if it is directed that in the event of alienation of suit land during pendency of the suit by the defendants, they shall specifically recite in the deed of alienation itself about pendency of the suit so that the alienee becomes aware of the pendency of the suit and may not be able to take plea of being bona fide purchaser without knowledge of pendency of the suit. It is ordered accordingly.

Defendants shall also, within one month of executing the alienation deed, place copy thereof on the record of the trial court, with intimation to counsel for plaintiff-petitioner. With aforesaid directions, the instant revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Nothing observed herein before shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit.