Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Rekha Borana, J.
Govind Ram – Appellant
Versus
Manish Kumar – Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2153/2022
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Mr. S.K. Shreemali for Mr. B.S. Sandhu, for the Appellant.
In a suit for specific performance, the court may grant injunction to protect the property, and evidentiary value of documents can only be determined through evidence led by the parties.
Headnote:
Injunction - Specific Performance of Contract - The court upheld the injunction granted by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from transferring the property in question or creating any right on the property, based on the need to protect the property in a suit for specific performance of the contract. The court also held that the FSL report regarding forged signatures was not binding on the civil court and could only be proved or disproved through evidence led by the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-defendant challenged the grant of injunction by the trial court in favor of the respondent-plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract, based on the allegation of forged document.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant of injunction to protect the property in question was justified in a suit for specific performance, and the FSL report regarding forged signatures was not binding on the civil court at that stage.
Issues: Validity of injunction in a suit for specific performance based on alleged forged document, and the evidentiary value of the FSL report at that stage.
Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, the court may grant injunction to protect the property, and the evidentiary value of documents such as the FSL report can only be determined through evidence led by the parties.
Final Decision: The appeal against the grant of injunction was dismissed, and the stay petition was also dismissed.
ORDER
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2022 whereby an application preferred by the respondentplaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been allowed.
2. The case of the appellant-defendant is that the suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of contract was based on a document which was forged.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that an FIR was registered qua the said transaction and in the criminal investigation, the FSL report qua the signatures on the agreement to sell in question was procured by the investigating officer. According to the FSL report, the signatures on the alleged agreement to sell were not of the defendant and therefore, the learned trial Court ought not to have granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
4. A perusal of the order impugned shows that the relief as granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff is only to the extent that the defendant has been restrained from transferring the property in question or creating any right on the property in question.
5. No injunction regarding the usage of the property has been granted by the trial Court.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the finding as recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be termed to be perverse or illegal. The present is a suit for specific performance of the contract based on the agreement to sell wherein the plaintiff has specifically alleged that part amount of the consideration had been paid to the defendant. In such a matter, the preservation of the property and restriction on creating any third party right on the property cannot be said to be bad as prima facie what is required of the Court is to protect the property in question.
7. So far as the FSL report is concerned, the same cannot be said to be binding on the Civil Court and furthermore the same is a document which can be either proved or not proved only after the evidence being led by the parties.
8. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
9. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
