Mukesh And Another vs Shiv Dayal

Amol Rattan Singh, J

Notice of motion was issued in this petition on September 18, 2018, with the following order passed:-

“Learned counsel points to the fact that despite undoubtedly the decree of the Civil Court that is sought to be executed, being in favour of the

respondent-plaintiff (decree holder) as regards possession of the suit property, on the basis of which he has been granted a decree of prohibitory

injunction in his favour, however thereafter even after the the appeal against that judgment and decree was dismissed by the Ist appellate Court on

04.04.2015 (a copy of which is Annexure P-5), the parties entered into an agreement of sale dated October 6, 2015 (a copy of which is Annexure P-

6), in which it is specifically shown that possession of the suit land (including the land as is the subject matter of the decree) had been handed over on

the spot.

He thereafter points to the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dated September 20, 2016, stated to have been passed in a suit

instituted by petitioner no.2 against the respondent herein (decree holder in the present lis), in which an order directing the parties to maintain status

quo was passed. The said suit is stated to have been instituted by petitioner no.2 seeking specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable on 19.11.2018.

Dasti process also.

To be shown in the urgent list.

In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing only at this stage.

If the respondent is not shown to be served by the next date of hearing, the interim order would be vacated.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as regards the suit for specific performance instituted by the present petitioner against the respondent

herein, qua the suit land as is subject matter of the present lis as also other parcels of land, the stand of the respondent herein in that suit is that the

agreement of sale is a forged and fabricated document, with an FIR also having been lodged qua that allegation. However, with learned counsel for

the petitioner herein submits that a cancellation report has been submitted qua that FIR.

As regards the order directing status quo to be maintained in that suit filed by the petitioner (seeking specific performance of an agreement as has

been set up by him), that interim order is stated to be only to the effect that the suit property be not alienated further, which learned counsel for the

petitioner has not been able to deny.

That being so, whether or not any agreement was subsequently entered into between the parties (with the respondent denying it completely), naturally

would be something which the present petitioner would have to prove in the suit already instituted by him seeking specific performance of such

agreement; however, the decree passed against him in favour of the respondent decree holder, in the present lis, not having been reversed in any

manner, with no order passed in any other proceedings staying dispossession of the petitioner, I see no reason to entertain this petition, which is

consequently dismissed.

However, naturally, till such time as the order of status quo is operating in the suit instituted by the petitioner (seeking specific performance), the

respondent would not alienate the suit property any further; and in case the petitioner succeeds in that suit, obviously the suit land 'would go' at that

stage, accordingly.