Consistency in orders involving the same subject matter and parties is necessary for maintaining fairness and equity in legal proceedings.

ORDER

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral). - With respect to an agreement to sell, the purchaser as well as the seller have filed their respective civil suits. In the civil suit filed by the purchaser, on the application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), status quo order as to the nature, user, construction, alienation and possession of the suit land etc. has been passed, which has attained finality. However, in the civil suit filed by the seller in respect of the same suit property by way of a subsequent interim order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the purchaser has been restrained from causing any interference and encroachment over the suit land in any manner. Aggrieved, the purchaser has preferred instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

For convenience, hereinafter, the purchaser is being referred to as the petitioner and the seller as respondent.

2. Suit filed by the petitioner:-

2(i). The petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract and consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction under Sections 10 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was filed in respect of Khata No.92, Khatoni No. 116, Khasra Nos.225, 226 and 230 Kita 3, measuring 0-04-72 hectares, located at Village Kusiar Mouza Hathol, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur.

The gist of petitioner's case was that the suit property was jointly owned and possessed by the respondent alongwith other co-sharers. The respondent entered into an agreement to sell his 12764th share to the petitioner on 22.10.2003 for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner to the respondent on the date of executing the agreement. In terms of the agreement to sell, the sale deedwas to be executed within one year from the date of the agreement. It was further alleged that the petitioner was put in possession of the suit land on the date of the agreement. The agreement dated 22.10.2003 was renewed on 29.02.2004. While renewing the agreement, the respondent disclosed that he was gair marushi over the suit land and therefore, he would not be in a position to sell the suit land till 17.09.2015. The sale deed was not being executed by the respondent, therefore, the suit was filed.

2(ii). The respondent in his written statement admitted the execution of the agreement to sell. However, his case was that no consideration had been transferred to him. Possession of the suit land was not delivered by him to the petitioner and that it was the respondent, who was in possession over the suit land. The agreement was a sham transaction. Respondent was not even competent to execute the agreement to sell in view of bar under Section 113 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act.

2(iii). Learned Trial Court after considering the respective pleadings and contentions of the parties, observed that the respondent had admitted the execution of the agreement to sell dated 22.10.2003. In the agreement, there was recital about transfer of entire consideration money in favour of the respondent. There was also a recital in the agreement about possession of suit land having been delivered to the petitioner. Therefore, learned Court held that a prima facie case existed in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff. Holding that the petitioner was able to make out a prima facie case in his favour, learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.01.2018, directed the parties to maintain status quo as to the nature, user, construction, alienation and possession of the suit land. The order passed on 01.01.2018 was accepted by the respondent. No further challenge was made to the order.

3. Suit filed by the respondent:-

3(i). The respondent filed a separate civil suit against the petitioner. He submitted that he is the owner in possession of Khasra No.230, measuring 0-01-80 hectares, located at Mahal Kusiar, Tappa Hathol, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur. It was contended that the petitioner was inte