Dismissed

Suvalal S/O Jamnalal v. Ghansilal S/O Shri Bhonrilal

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2021CMA/1509/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the refusal of a temporary injunction application. It upheld the lower court's finding that the prima facie case was absent and directed the civil court to dispose of the main suit expeditiously, noting the long pendency of the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the application; no adjustments to the interim status were granted.

Suvalal S/O Jamnalal Vs Ghansilal S/O Shri Bhonrilal — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1509/2021

¶3

Suvalal S/o Jamnalal, R/o Harsuliya Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ghansilal S/o Shri Bhonrilal, R/o Harsuliya Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

¶7

Hanuman S/o Barda, R/o Bhimpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

¶8

Tehsildar, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

Sub-Registrar, Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

Santra Devi W/o Tarachand, R/o Shiv Colony, Tehsil Sanganer, District Japur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Ranjan, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶14

Order

¶15

01/10/2021

¶16

This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the plaintiffappellant challenging the order dated 03.08.2021, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff, under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for Temporary Injunction, has been dismissed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has wrongly recorded a finding that the appellant did not have prima-facie case.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court on an agreement to sell dated 26.10.2005 where defendant No.1-Ghasilal and defendant No.2–Hanuman have executed an

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CMA-1509/2021]

¶21

agreement to sell the property in favour of the respondent– Hanuman.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that at the end of the agreement to sell, there is another hand written endorsement that the defendant-Hanuman had agreed to sell the land to the present appellant and said hand written noting was drawn on 24.11.2005.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that initially when the suit was filed in the year 2014, the Court below had passed an order on 18.08.2015, whereby the defendants were restrained to transfer the property till the decision of Temporary Injunction application.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that ad-interim order continued till rejection of interim injunction application and as such the order passed by the Court below is not legally sustainable.

¶25

Learned counsel further submitted that the fact of extension of time on various dates after agreement to sell was duly proved before the Court below and yet the Court has not found the primafacie case in favour of the appellant.

¶26

Learned counsel-Mr.Rajat Ranjan appears on behalf of the respondent No.5-Santra Devi as caveator.

¶27

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

This Court finds that while considering the prima-facie case, the Court below has found that since agreement to sell was initially entered between the defendants-respondents–Ghasilal and Hanuman and as such the suit for specific performance itself prima-facie was not maintainable, as the appellant was not the party with whom owner of the land i.e. Ghasilal had agreed to sell the property.

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CMA-1509/2021]

¶31

The Court below has further found that the agreement between the defendant-respondent–Hanuman and the present appellant will not make out a prima-facie case until land stands transferred in the name of Hanuman which was to be sold by the defendant–Ghasilal.

¶32

This Court finds that the Court below has kept relevant parameters for considering the grant of Temporary Injunction application and as such no error is found in the order passed by the Court below.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Vimal Kumar Jain submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Court below, at least directions may be given to dispose of the suit in expeditious manner.

¶34

Learned counsel submitted that since interim order has been continued for almost six years and as such now rights of the appellant would be seriously affected, if subsequent transaction also takes place of transfer of the property during pendency of the suit.

¶35

This Court finds that if sincere efforts are made by the parties before the Civil Court for disposal of their case, the Court below is expected to decide the suit in expeditious manner as per law.

¶36

The observations made by this Court will have no bearing in the main suit which is to be decided by the Civil Court.

¶37

Accordingly the miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of.

¶38

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶39

Ramesh Vaishnav /86/Monika

¶40

Suvalal S/O Jamnalal v. Ghansilal S/O Shri Bhonrilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suvalal S/O Jamnalal v. Ghansilal S/O Shri Bhonrilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Paam Drugs Pharmaceuticals Vs

Naraendra Kumar and Others Vs Anuj Kumar and Others

Icici Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Subhash Chand Sharma and Ors.

Sourabh Kumar Jeengar S/O Shri Manoj Kumar Jeengar Vs State of Rajasthan

Maharishi Dayanand Law College Vs Commissioner, Department of College Education

Sarjeet Singh Rathore S/O Magan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan