An injunction cannot be granted to restrain a vendor from alienating property when the purchaser has failed to pay the balance earnest money by the due date, as the purchaser has an equally efficacious remedy by way of suit for specific performance.

1. This order disposes of Civil Revisions Nos. 1453 of 1990 and 1509 of 1990. These are directed against the order of the Appellate Court reversing on appeal that of the trial Judge whereby the Latter declined to grant interim injunction to the vendees against the vendors restraining them from alienating the disputed property in any manner.

2. I have alluded to the facts arising from the pleadings of the parties in Civil Suit Kanwaljit Singh V/s. Jang Singh etc. giving rise to Civil Revision No. 1453 of 1989.

3. The facts :-

An agreement to sell dated 18/07/1989 was executed by Jang Singh son of Partap Singh, Manohar Singh, Balbir Singh sons of Jang Singh and Surjit Singh son of Jang Singh, residents of Barewala Awan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the vendors) in favour of Lav Kumar son of Sh. Pawan Kumar son of Shri Dina Nath and Kamaljit Singh son of Ranbir Singh son of S. Teja Singh, residents of 802, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the vendees) agreeing to sell land measuring 30 bighas 3 biswas 5 biswansis Pukhta situate at Mauza Barewal Awan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana at the rate of Rs. 4,05,000.00 per acre. The essential terms incorporated in the agreement were; one lac of rupees were given as Sai (part earnest money) on the date of execution of the agreement to sell. Another sum of Rs. 9 lacs was to be paid as additional sum by way of earnest money on 30/11/1989. The balance amount was to be paid in instalments and the first instalment of Rs. 15 lacs was to be paid on 31/05/1990. The remaining amount was to be paid in three equal half yearly instalments. The possession was to be delivered on payment of the remaining part of the earnest money viz. Rs. 9 lacs, on 30/11/1989. After payment of the earnest money, the vendees were entitled to enter into possession and divide the land into plots. The vendors were to get the Nishan Dehi done by 30/11/1989. The document also recites that the vendors were in possession and the vendees will be entitled to enter into possession on payment of the entire earnest money i.e. Rs. 10 lacs. It appears that part of the earnest money viz. Rs. 9 lacs which was to be paid on 30/11/1989 was not paid by the vendees. Apprehending that the vendors may not sell the property to any other persons, the vendees filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the vendors from alienating the property in any manner. Along with the suit, an application under O. 39, Rr.1, 2 C.P.C. was also filed which was rejected by the trial Judge, but on appeal, the order was reversed by the first Appellate Court and the same has been challenged in this revision petition.

4. It is true that the discreationary orders passed by the trial or Appellate Courts are not interfered with in revision but if the order has been passed by reading something in the document of title which is non-existent then this Court will be justified in considering the merits of the case. A perusal of the order of the First Appellate Court reveals that it read the essential terms of the document as under :-

--

"i) The agreement was for the sale of land measuring 42B-11B-OB pukhta out of total land measuring 46B-13B-14B, pertaining to several Khasra numbers in which the respondents had a share. ii) A sum of Rs. 4,05,000.00 was paid as earnest money and the remaining earnest money of rupees nine lacs was to be paid on 30-11-89. iii) The respondents were bound to take Nishan Dehi from the Revenue Officers till 30-11-1989. iv) In case the purchasers did not pay the amount of nine lacs on 30-11-89 then the contract was to be considered cancelled and amount of rupees one lac forfeited. v) The remaining sale consideration was to be paid in instalments as mentioned above. vi) In case purchasers did not pay any instalments by the stipulated date when they could pay it within one month thereafter along with interest at 1% per month." The essential terms which appear to have been extracted from the a