Raghvendra Das Vaishnav vs Premlal Sahu And Ors

Goutam Bhaduri, J

Heard.

The present appeal is against the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the 6 th Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.32A/2013.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an agreement was executed with respondent No.1 for purchase of certain land and an amount of

Rs.51000/- was paid as advance and thereafter the appellant started developing certain land bearing Khasra No.58/1 which was reserved for EWS

and garden and said lands were subsequently sold to respondents No.6 & 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the further alienation

with the suit property is made, it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.

Perusal of the order would show that the suit for which the specific performance has been filed for purchase of a property an agreement in

between respondent No.1 Premlal Sahu and the plaintiff/appellant was executed. The trial Court has recorded that prior to filing of the suit, a part of

the property was already sold to the added respondents who are respondents No.6 & 7. The trial Court further observed that though the suit was

based on an agreement dated 19.06.2000, the original agreement was not placed on record. In any case, if the finding is that the said property has

already been sold prior to the filing of the suit, in absence of any injunction claimed as against respondents No.6 & 7, by which the impugned

application was decided, it will be entirely futile to go into the merits of this case to explore the facts. Prima facie the order shows that the subject

property has already been sold to respondents No.6 & 7 and injunction order has not been specifically claimed against the respondents which were not

originally added party before the Court. Therefore, in absence of any such prayer any restraint order cannot be passed against the subsequent added

parties. The order of the Court below further records that respondent No.6 is the bona fide purchaser and has acquired the possession of land. The

fact whether he is the bona fide purchase or not, who purchased the same in the year 2008, injuncting him to enjoy the property in the year 2014 will

lead to irreparable loss and the balance of convenience do not lie in favour of the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this

appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. If the proceedings are not concluded before the Court below, the appellant/plaintiff shall be at liberty to file duly

constituted afresh application as against respondents No.6 & 7, if so advised.