Honble CHAUHAN, J.—This appeal questions the validity of the order dated 4.5.2006, passed by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur District, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of temporary injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘the Code’, for short), by the appellant.

2. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance, for declaration and injunction against respondent No. 1. According to the plaint, the father of the respondent No. 1, Damodar Lal, had about 15.18 hectares of agriculture land in Village Labana, Tehsil Amber, District Jaipur. After the death of Damodar, the respondent No. 1 inherited half the share of the said agriculture land. While he got 7.59 hectares of land, his brother, Gopal Lal got the other 7.59 hectares of land. On 3.4.2005, the respondent No. 1 and the appellant entered into an agreement to sale with regard to the part of the land owned by the respondent No. 1. According to the said agreement, the respondent No. 1 had agreed to sell the land for a consideration of Rs. 21 lacs. On 3.4.2005, the appellant paid Rs. 15 lacs to the respondent No. 1 in cash. The remaining amount of Rs. 6 lacs were to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed which was to be registered within three months and latest by 30.6.2005. The appellant was always willing to fulfill his side of the agreement. Thrice, on 12.6.2005, 19.6.2005, and 30.6.2005, the appellant offered the remaining amount to the respondent No. 1 and requested him to get the sale deed registered. However, the respondent No. 1 kept on postponing the registration of the sale deed. Therefore, on 19.7.2005, the appellant even sent a legal notice to the respondent No. 1. However, the respondent No. 1 did not bother to reply to the said notice. Hence, the appellant filed the civil suit as indicated above. Along with the suit petition, the appellant also filed an application for temporary injunction.

3. The respondent No. 1 filed his written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. According to the respondent No. 1, he never entered into an agreement to sale with the appellant on 3.4.2005. The said agreement is a forged document. He, further, denied having received any money from the appellant. According to him, he had entered into an agreement to sale with two persons, namely Shri. Prakash Chand Jain and one Mr. Rafiq Khan on 8.7.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 1, 42, 52,000/-. Lastly, he claimed out of the said amount, he has received about Rs. 21 Lacs from the two persons.

4. In rejoinder, the appellant denied the averments of the written statement and pointed out that the respondent No. 1 has not even bothered to place the original copy of the alleged agreement to sale entered on 8.7.2005 between the respondent No. 1 and the two persons.

5. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 4.5. 2006, the learned Judge dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Hence, this appeal before this court.

6. Mr. Arvind Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the learned Judge has decided the application for temporary injunction as though he were deciding the suit finally. According to him, at the stage of temporary injunction, the court does not hold a mini-trial. Therefore, the court cannot go into the probative value of the documents. However, the learned court has erred in accepting the contention of respondent No. 1, that the agreement to sale dated 3.4.2005 is a fake one. In the absence of cogent evidence, it is too early for the court to come to this conclusion at the initial stage of the trial. Secondly, while considering the temporary injunction application, the court is not supposed to go into the merits of the case. In order to buttress his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Narendra Singh Rajawat & Ors. vs. Tahkur Mohan Singh Kanota & Ors. (2002 (2) WLC 362). Thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document