Appellant appealed against an order dismissing a temporary injunction application in a specific performance suit. The High Court directed status quo over the suit land and ordered the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Parties directed to maintain status quo over suit land; trial court directed to expedite trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MA No. 47 of 2023
1. Dronacharya Deshmukh S/o Late J. L. Deshmukh Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 42, Azad Chowk, Kasaridih, Durg Chhattisgarh Present Address Vidyut Nagar, Near Dwivedi Complex, Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kiran Bai W/o Late Janardhan Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Village And Post Tomwari, Ps Anda, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2. Dhaneshwar S/o Late Janardhan Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Village And Post Tomwari, Ps Anda, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3. Damini, D/o Late Janardhan Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Village And Post Tomwari, Ps Anda, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. Yogesh Kumar Pandey S/o D.N. Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Chandrnagar, Kohka, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.
5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. B. L. Sahu, P. L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
05.1 2.2023
1 . The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of Second Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit no. 70A/2022 dated 03.03.2023 whereby in a suit for specific performance of contract an application for injunction moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.
2 . Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 04.05.2018, the appellant entered into an oral agreement with respondents No. 1 to 3 for purchasing their 0.200-hectare land bearing Survey No. 112/1 situated in District Durg for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- and it was assured by respondent No. 1 that
-2-
she will execute the sale deed in favour of appellant after the mutation of the land in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3 and once respondents No. 2 and 3 attain majority. On 26.06.2021, the suit land was mutated in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3. The appellant entered into a written agreement with respondents No. 1 to 3 and paid sale consideration of Rs. 7,31,000/- to respondents No. 1 to 3 on 25.03.2022 and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs, 4,69,000/- shall be paid at the time of execution of sale deed, but no time was fixed for execution of the sale deed. He would further submit that the appellant made repeated requests for execution of the sale deed but respondents No. 1 to 3 gave evasive replies, meanwhile, respondents No. 1 to 3 sold the suit land to respondent No. 4 vide registered sale deed dated 16.09.2022 and the mutation proceedings in this regard are still pending. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid behaviour of respondents, the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 70A/2022 against the defendants seeking specific performance of the contract and declaring the sale deed dated 16.09.2022 null and void as prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the appellant and respondent No. 4 filed his reply on 18.01.2023 before the learned trial court. He would also submit that the learned trial court vide order dated 03.03.2023 dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2. Later, the appellant preferred an appeal before this court, which was admitted on 13.04.2023. This court vide order dated 17.07.2023 ordered both parties to maintain the status quo over the suit land till the date of a further hearing. He would further pray for a direction to the trial Court.
3 . On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents would oppose and pray for early disposal of the present appeal.
4 . I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the documents placed on record and the order impugned.
5 . From a perusal of documents, it appears that the appellant entered into a
-3-
written agreement with respondents No. 1 to 3 and paid sale consideration of Rs. 7,31,000/- on 25.03.2022 and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs, 4,69,000/- shall be paid at the time of execution of sale deed whereas no time was fixed for execution of sale deed. The appellant made repeated requests for execution of the sale deed but respondents No. 1 to 3 gave evasive replies, meanwhile, respondents No. 1 to 3 sold the suit land to respondent No. 4 vide registered sale deed dated 16.09.2022 and the mutation proceedings in this regard are still pending. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid behaviour of respondents, the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 70A/2022 against the defendants seeking specific performance of the contract and declaring the sale deed dated 16.09.2022 to be null and void; respondent No. 4 filed his reply on 18.01.2023 before the learned trial court. Learned trial framed issues and vide order dated 03.03.2023 dismissed the application of the appellant stating that there is no case for balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favor of the appellant. Later, the appellant preferred an appeal before this court, which was admitted on 13.04.2023. This court vide order dated 17.07.2023 ordered both parties to maintain the status quo over the suit land till the date of a further hearing.
6 . Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo over the suit land and the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of Civil Suit No. 70A/2022.
7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Ajinkya
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction should be issued to maintain status quo and expedite trial in a suit for specific performance where an agreement exists but sale deed execution is delayed.
Dronacharya Deshmukh
Kiran Bai
Dhaneshwar
Damini
Yogesh Kumar Pandey
State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
