Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN
Mahesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Omaira Buildcon Proprietor Lalit Gogia – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The appeal was filed against a trial court order that rejected an application for an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from selling or transferring the disputed land during the pendency of the suit (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance based on a registered agreement to sell land, alleging that the defendant defaulted on executing the sale deed despite the plaintiffs' readiness and partial payment (!) .
The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating or selling the land to third parties, claiming that such transfer could complicate or prejudice the outcome of the suit (!) .
The trial court rejected the injunction application primarily on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked possession and ownership rights, and that the land belonged to multiple co-owners, making the land unidentifiable and the plaintiffs not in possession (!) .
The appellate court observed that the reasoning of the trial court was perverse, emphasizing that the plaintiffs' concern was the potential sale by the defendant which could create third-party rights and complicate the case, regardless of their possession or ownership status (!) .
The appellate court reaffirmed that an interim injunction can be granted to prevent alienation of property during litigation, even in cases involving the doctrine of lis pendens, as the doctrine does not preclude such relief in appropriate circumstances (!) (!) .
It was clarified that the agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights, but the plaintiffs have a right to seek protection against the defendant's potential alienation of the property during the suit (!) .
The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the injunction application on the basis of possession and ownership issues, as the primary concern was preventing the defendant from alienating the property, which is permissible under law (!) .
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s order, allowing the injunction application, and restrained the defendant from transferring or creating third-party rights in the disputed land during the litigation (!) .
The trial court is directed to decide the original suit on merits within a specified period, without unnecessary delays, and in accordance with law (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with drafting specific legal documents based on this case?
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar in Original Suit No.751 of 2023 (Mahesh and others vs. Omaira Buildcon Proprietor Lalit Gogia) wherein plaintiffs’ interim injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. has been rejected on merits.
2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.751 of 2023 against the defendant with the averments that the defendant is owner of land situated in khet No.114M, area 3250 square yard, village Mirzapur, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddha Nagar which was agreed to be sold to plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.2.05 crores, regarding which there were talks between him and the defendant in November, 2021 and in furtherance of that, a registered agreement to sell in presence of the witnesses was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on 28.07.2022. According to which, the defendant had already received consideration of Rs.1.85 crores prior to the execution of the agreement and it was agreed t
An interim injunction can be granted to restrain the alienation of property during the pendency of a suit, even in light of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Ac....
The doctrine of lis pendens overrides the rights of bona fide purchasers when they acquire property during pending litigation concerning the same property, as established by case law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
Point of law: Validity of, and effect of S. 52 – Doctrine of lis pendens is based on ground that it is necessary for administration of justice that decision of a court in a suit should be binding not....
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982, the rights of the appellants in the suit for Specific Performance against the Immovable property is protected under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Ac....
The court emphasized the need to consider the maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience before granting an injunction. It also highlighted the relevance of the time fixed for perform....
The main legal point established is the application of principles for granting interim injunctions, the interpretation of time as the essence of a contract, and the significance of fulfilling recipro....
In contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is generally not of the essence unless explicitly stated, and parties must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
