1. The order dated 22.10.2010 passed by learned First Additional Judge to the Court of Second Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 61-A/2010 has been made pivot by the appellant/defendant No. 1 by filing this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC.

2. No exhaustive statements of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this appeal Suffice it to say that a suit for specific performance of contract has been filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 against present appellant and respondent No.2 to 4, who are defendants in the suit.

3. According to the plaintiff, a document of agreement of sale has been executed between the parties on 20th November, 2008 and it was agreed upon by the parties that the defendants shall alienate the suit property to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- in which the plaintiff is residing as tenant of the defendants. It is further the case of plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in advance was paid by him to defendants and this fact is also embodied in the document of agreement of sale. Further, it has been pleaded that till the sale deed is executed, the status of defendant would be that of tenant only and he would occupy the suit property as tenant. Since it came into the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendants are trying to alienate the suit property to third person, the present suit has been filed for specific performance of contract and a decree of injunction has been sought that defendants should not alienate the suit property to any third party.

4. An application for issuance of temporary injunction has also been filed by he plaintiff on the same ground and it has been prayed that till the decision of the suit, the defendants should not alienate the suit property.

5. No reply of application of issuance of temporary injunction has been filed by either of the defendant. No doubt, it is true that a written statement has been filed by them. In the written statement, the factum of the execution of the agreement of sale has been denied.

6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the application of temporary injunction of plaintiff and restrained defendant from alienating the suit property.

7. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 assailing the said order of learned trial Court.

8. It has been contended by Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the face value of the document of alleged agreement of sale, it would become luminously clear that although, the document has been labelled as agreement of sale but it is outright a sale deed and if that would be the position, since the stamp duty on the conveyance has not been affixed and the document is not a registered document, therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence. By placing reliance on a decision of Supreme Court Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 (I) MPJR 113, it has been put forth by the learned counsel that looking to the ingredients of the alleged document of agreement of sale, since it is a conveyance, therefore, it is not even dismissible for collateral purpose.

9. By inviting my attention to paragraph 2 of the alleged document of agreement of sale, it has been contended by learned counsel that although, the factum of execution of the document has been denied, but, even for the sake of argument if it is held that the said document was executed, since it has been embodied in paragraph 2 of the said document that the plaintiff who is residing as tenant will not pay amount of rent and, therefore, it should be deemed that his possession on the suit property is as of owner and, therefore, the relationship of the landlord and tenant has come to an end and the document is a conveyance, therefore, since necessary stamp duty is not affixed, the same is inadmissible in evidence. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Yogendra V