This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an interim injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The court analyzed a sale agreement and held it did not create an irrevocable agency. Finding no manifest injustice, the High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227.
The writ petition was dismissed with no interim order granted.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11112/2016
Brijmohan Rathore S/o Narmadashankar Ji, Caste Teli, Maruti Nagar, Petrol Pump Ke Saamne, Vinaayka Property Dealer, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota (rajasthan.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Jaswinder Singh S/o Mahendra Singh C/o Sikh, Ramganjmandi, District Kota (rajasthan) Power of Attorney Holder Bhanwarlal S/o Mathuralal Caste Balaai R/o Mohaana, Tehsil Raawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (raj.)
----Respondent
Date of Order:
December 11, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Vipin Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Hora, for the respondent.
BY THE COURT :
The petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter `the plaintiff') is aggrieved of the order dated 12-7-2016 passed by Additional District Judge Ramganjmandi affirming the order dated 24-6-2016 passed by Civil Judge Ramganjmandi dismissing his application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
2
orders as also the disputed agreement dated 8-2-2016 between the plaintiff and the respondent-defendant (hereafter `the defendant') on which the underlying suit is founded as was the application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC.
A perusal of the agreement dated 8-2-2016 indicates that prima facie the agreement authorised the plaintiff only to sell certain plots in khasra No.2776 admeasuring 1.62 hectare in village Khairabad Tehsil Ramganjmandi at specified prices within time fixed without creating any interest in the property for the plaintiff. All amounts in excess the agreed fixed amount towards specified consideration of plots sold were to be appropriated by the plaintiff as his commission. The terms of agreement dated 8-2-2016 did not prima facie create any interest in the property i.e. plots in issue for the defendant. The agreement dated 8-2-2016 was therefore amenable and capable of recession by the plaintiff as has been done vide his notice dated 14-6-2016. Resultantly, I do not prima facie find any traction in the argument of the plaintiff's counsel that Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 attracted to the transaction and created an irrevocable agency for the plaintiff under the agreement dated 8-2-2016. The courts below have so held on a reasonable prima facie view on the facts and material before them.
It is trite that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of
3
the Constitution of India is confined to interference with orders of court's below which are patently perverse, patently illegal or suffer from error of jurisdiction leading to manifest injustice. None of the aforesaid situations obtain in the instant case. Contrarily the impugned order/s are well considered and based on objective consideration of material on record.
There is no force in the petition. Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/
4
All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the agreement of sale created an irrevocable agency attracting Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the impugned order.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Brijmohan Rathore
Jaswinder Singh
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
