Shyamacharan vs Rajpati and 3 Others

Suneet Kumar, J.—Vijay Bahadur filed suit Original Suit No. 542 of 2001 against Jatashanker and Shyamacharan (petitioner in the present writ petition) for specific performance. Shyamacharan, the petitioner purchased the suit property lis pendens. The petitioner had filed a separate suit no. 790 of 2008 (Shyamacharan versus Rajpati and others) for permanent injunction.

Jatashanker filed suit no. 165 of 2002 against Vijay Bahadur for cancellation of agreement to sell.

The suits were heard together.

The suit for specific performance was decreed and suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner preferred appeal arising out of his suit no. 790 of 2008.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the appeal has been admitted, hence in view of Mool Chand Yadav and Another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and Others, , the effect and operation of the judgment and order be stayed.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived as the suit for specific performance suit no. 542 of 2001 was decreed and the petitioner is lis pendens and in view of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioner steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor; by filing separate suit and against its dismissal filing an appeal will not help the petitioner in obtaining injunction of decree passed in another suit, no injunction can be granted against the provision of law.

This court is not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.