IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of protecting property during litigation to prevent irreparable harm, allowing a temporary injunction against alienation.

JUDGMENT :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapasan in Civil Misc. Case No. 91/2023 whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the appellant plaintiff has been rejected.

2. The case of the appellant was that agreement dated 08.02.2021 was entered into between him and respondent No. 1- defendant No. 1, in pursuance to which, defendant No. 1 received an amount of Rs. 15 lacs from him and handed over the possession of his two shops. It was agreed that if the defendant would return the said amount with interest, that is, Rs. 17 lacs within a period of one year, the shops qua which the agreement was entered into, would be returned to the defendant and if he would not return the said amount within a period of one year, he would then accept an additional amount of Rs. 11 lacs from the plaintiff as further consideration qua the shops and would get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff for the said two shops.

3. The defendant despite continuous requests, neither returned the amount with interest as promised nor did he accept the amount of Rs. 11 lacs and denied to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit for specific performance was filed.

4. In the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2, CPC, it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and further be restrained from alienating the property in question.

5. Per contra, the case of the defendant was that neither did he execute the said document nor did he receive any amount as alleged by the plaintiff. He submitted that infact, some blank papers were got signed by the plaintiff qua the amount borrowed by the defendant from one Raju. The amount borrowed from Raju was returned by him but the plaintiff, despite the same, misused the blank papers qua which even an FIR was lodged by him.

6. Learned trial Court did not find the version of the plaintiff to be genuine and observed that the execution of the agreement dated 08.02.2021 itself was doubtful. Learned trial Court relied upon the affidavits of Raju Soni, who admitted the repayment of the amount to him and of one Radheshyam, who admitted the repayment of the said amount in his presence and further that possession of the shops in question was with the defendant. With the said observations, the Court did not find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and hence, rejected the application preferred for temporary injunction.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. A perusal of the documents as placed on record by learned counsel for the appellant makes it clear that the disputed agreement is a notarised document signed by both the parties. The signatures on the said document have not been denied by the defendant, he has submitted that he had signed some blank papers. Further, the signatures of Virendra Singh, brother of the defendant, has also not been disputed.

Meaning thereby, the execution of the document by Bhanwar Singh, cannot be ruled out absolutely at the threshold. As observed by the learned trial Court, genuineness of the said document, execution of the same etc. are the issues which would be decided only after evidence being led on the same.

9. So far as the prima facie case is concerned, it is clear on record that the plaintiff has come up with a case that the agreement was entered into between the parties qua the sale of two shops in question. He even alleges possession of the shops to be with him. On the other hand, defendant alleges that the possession of the ship with him. In view of the same, this Court is of the clear opinion that as is the settled position of law, till the disposal of the suit, the property needs to be protected. If the defendant is not restrained and shops are alienated further during