Pending a suit for specific performance of an agreement, the court may grant a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property.

Headnote:
Temporary Injunction - Specific Performance of Agreement - The court upheld the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 (r) of CPC to prevent the appellant from transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property pending the suit for specific performance of the agreement.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the suit property. The appellant claimed that the agreement was cancelled and the amount was refunded, but failed to provide evidence. The trial court granted the respondent's application for temporary injunction to prevent the appellant from transferring the property.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's claim of cancellation and refund was a matter of evidence to be decided at the time of the suit. Pending the suit, the court deemed it necessary to prevent the appellant from transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property.
Issues: Dispute over cancellation of agreement and refund of amount, grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 (r) of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Pending a suit for specific performance of an agreement, the court may grant a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the grant of temporary injunction was upheld.

JUDGMENT

1. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant under Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC challenging the order dated 19.5.12 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Mahanagar, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 137/11, whereby the trial court has granted the application of the respondent-plaintiff seeking temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 (r) of CPC.

2. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount received by the appellant from the respondent towards the agreement in question was already refunded to the respondent on 2.5.11 in presence of the witnesses and the agreement in question was cancelled. According to him the order passed by the trial court is unjust and improper.

3. In the instant case, the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 12.1.09 in respect of the suit property. The appellant-defendant has not disputed the execution of the said agreement, however, has taken up the contention that subsequently the said agreement was cancelled on 2.5.11 and the amount received by the appellant has been paid back to the respondent. It appears that the appellant has not produced any receipt to show that the amount was paid back to the respondent and the agreement in question was cancelled. Be that as it may, it will be a matter of evidence to be decided at the time of the suit, as to whether the agreement in question was cancelled by the appellant or not. Pending the suit it is necessary that the appellant does not transfer, sell or create any third party interest in the suit property in order to avoid further multiplicity of the proceedings.

4. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any substance in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1557

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHBela M.Trivedi, J.Baluram - AppellantVersusRam Kishore Yadav - RespondentS.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2677 of 2012.Decided On : 19-07-2013

Pending a suit for specific performance of an agreement, the court may grant a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Bela M.Trivedi, J.
Baluram - Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishore Yadav - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2677 of 2012.
Decided On : 19-07-2013