AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Impugned in the present revision petition is the order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which
the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar, was reversed and the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1
and 2 CPC, 1908, was allowed and the present petitioner-defendant along with co-defendant was restrained from alienating the suit property in any
manner to any one, except the plaintiff till the decision of the suit.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully gone through the case file.
It comes out that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.05.2003 regarding the land measuring 17
marlas. He claimed that the agreement was entered into by defendant No.2-Company through its authorized representative defendant No.1. The total
sale consideration was of `28,90,000/-. Out of which, `27,90,000/- were paid and only `1,00,000/- remained to be paid. As per one of the stipulations of
the agreement, since the land was not mutated in favour of defendant No.1, therefore, the defendants were required to get mutation entered and
supply the copy of mutation and jamabandi to the plaintiff, so that the sale deed could be executed and the balance consideration of `1,00,000/- was to
be paid.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the mutation was entered in the year 2004-05 and suit was filed after 13 years. Further, defendant
No.2 was never authorized by defendant No.1 to enter into agreement. It has been further claimed that the rule of lis pendens will apply and there is
no need to grant injunction.
I am of the view that the question as to whether defendant No.2 was authorized by defendant No.1 to enter into an agreement is a question of fact,
which is to be decided by the trial Court by recording evidence. A further question of fact yet to be determined is as to whether the copy of jamabandi
was supplied by the defendants to the plaintiff, in terms of the agreement, to enable him to claim the execution of sale deed? For this purpose,
evidence is yet to be recorded. The rule of lis pendens is no substitution for the specific order restraining the alienation of the disputed property, in
order to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation.
In this case, the lower appellate Court has rightly observed that except `1,00,000/-, remaining amount has been paid. All the averments and counter
averments are yet to be examined by recording of evidence.
Therefore, the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the order of the trial Court and granting injunction pending the disposal of the suit.
There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. As such, the present revision petition is dismissed.
Since, the main revision petition has been dismissed, therefore, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.