In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must show a strong prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience to obtain a temporary injunction.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Surya Prakash along with Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby, the appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.8 of 2024 filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC in connection with Original Title Suit No.571 of 2023 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ranchi, has been rejected.

3. Mr. Surya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recorded raiyat sold and transferred the land of 2.40 acres under Khata No.91, Khewat No.2 being R.S. Plot No.375, 895, 896 and 1106 of Village Morabadi, Tetartoli, P.S. Bariatu, Revenue P.S. No.792, District- Ranchi by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 03.10.1958 after taking permission under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act vide Case No.64R 08.11.1957- 58 in favour of Chamna Munda and put him in khas and effective possession of the same and, thereafter, Chamna Munda acquired valid right, title, interest and possession over the aforesaid land. He then submits that Chamna Munda and his son, namely, Simon Kachhap executed a registered agreement on 28.01.1989 in favour of Emmanuel Xalxo being the father of the plaintiff/petitioner for sale and transfer of the land under Khata No.91, Plot No.375, 895, 896 and 1106, total area 1.20 acres out of 2.40 acres of Village- Morabadi, Tetartoli, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi. He further submits that since the agreement dated 28.01.1989 was not complied with, the suit for specific performance was filed, which is still pending and they are trying to sold the land to other persons and in view of that, the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC was filed and the learned Court on erroneous ground has rejected the same vide order dated 29.06.2024. He submits that the order dated 29.06.2024 was challenged before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.8 of 2024, which was further rejected vide judgment dated 30.11.2024. He submits that both the learned courts have erred in not considering that the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and, as such, both the orders may kindly be quashed and the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC may kindly be allowed.

4. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the order. He submits that contradictory stand has been taken by the petitioner; on the one hand he is in possession and on the other hand, the petitioner is making out the case that other side is trying to take over the possession of the suit property.

5. In view of the above, the Court has gone through the judgments of both the courts. The learned appellate court has found that the stand was taken by the plaintiff/petitioner that the defendants/respondents are carrying construction over the suit property and the petitioner has not produced any photograph and convincing evidence to suggest that the defendants/respondents are carrying construction over the suit property and in view of that, no prima facie case was found in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner before both the courts. The plaintiff/petitioner has admitted that the defendants/ respondents are in possession of the suit land and in view of that, the learned court has found that balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. The case of irreparable loss is also not made out as the petitioner was not able to show that if injunction is not granted in his favour, it cannot be compensated in terms of money and in above three ingredients, the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to make out the case of injunction in light of Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the C