Back
1984 Supreme(P&H) 607
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.V.Gupta, J.
Amrit Kaur
Versus
Mohan Singh
First Appeal from Order No. 564 of 1983,
Decided On : OCTOBER 11, 1984
The relief of temporary injunction should not be granted in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell when the plaintiff has not filed a suit for the recovery of the rent and is not going to suffer any irreparable loss.
Headnote:
Temporary Injunction - Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell - The court declined the application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from collecting the rent of the suit property, as the plaintiff had not filed the suit for the recovery of the rent and was not going to suffer any irreparable loss. The relief of temporary injunction should not be granted in the suit for the specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the property and applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from collecting the rent of the property. The trial Court declined the application, and the plaintiff appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appeal, stating that the relief of temporary injunction should not be granted in the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff was not going to suffer any irreparable loss, and the trial Court's decision was not wrong or illegal.
Issues: The issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from collecting the rent of the suit property in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief of temporary injunction should not be granted in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, especially when the plaintiff had not filed a suit for the recovery of the rent and was not going to suffer any irreparable loss.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was not debarred from moving any fresh application for any other relief to which she may be entitled in the suit.
J.V.Gupta, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the trial Court dated June 13, 1983, whereby the application for the grant of the temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from collecting the rent of the share of the plaintiff was declined.
2. Admittedly the plaintiff-appellant has filed the suit for the specific performance of the agreement to sell the suit property. Alongwith the suit, she filed the application for the grant of the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from collecting the rent of the suit property. That application was resisted on behalf of defendants. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was not going to suffer any irreparable loss and that the suit for the recovery of the amount of rent, if any, would be maintainable against the defendants. Consequently, the application for the grant of the temporary injunction was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this suit.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per terms of the agreement, the plaintiff is entitled to the rent to the extent of her share of the property to be sold from the date when the earnest money was paid. Thus, argued the learned counsel for the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of the injunction prayed for. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the defendants be directed to give an undertaking that in case the suit is decreed, the plaintiff will be entitled to the rent of the suit property in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal.
5. The relief of temporary injunction should not be granted to the plaintiff in the suit for the specific performance of agreement to sell. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not filed the suit for the recovery of the rent of the suit property which is being realised by the defendants. Thus there is nothing wrong or illegal in the discretion exercised by the trial Court in not granting the application of the plaintiff for the grant of temporary injunction.
6. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff will not be debarred from moving any fresh application for any other relief to which she may be entitled in the suit in view of the terms of the agreement to sell. Revision dismissed.
