JUDGMENT

The plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved by the order of refusal of prayer for ad-interim injunction passed in Civil Suit No. 15/2006 on 04.09.2018.

2. The plaintiff M/s Shri Govind Real Infra India Pvt. Ltd through its Director Smt. Suman Gurjar brought civil suit No 15/06 for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.05.2013 and for declaration that the said sale deed executed by plaintiff company in favour of defendant No. 1 Shri Govind Town Planers Pvt. Ltd is null and void having no effect due to want of transfer of consideration money. Plaintiff further sought for declaration that the sale deed dated 19.10.2015 executed by defendant No. 1 in respect of some of the plots which were subject matter of registered sale deed dated 17.05.2013 in favour of some others as null and void, without jurisdiction and the same also be cancelled. Next prayer was for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

3. It is worth to mention that Mr. Shiv Pratap Harshana defendant No. 8 was the Director of plaintiff company who had executed the registered sale deed on behalf of the company and Smt. Suman Gurjar another Director of the plaintiff company who is wife of Mr. Shiv Pratap Harshana has filed the suit aforesaid. It is also worth to be noted that the transaction of sale deed dated 19.10.2015 executed by defendant No. 1, the purchaser are not party to the suit.

4. Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal learned counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff specifically pleaded in the plaint that sale deed dated 17.05.2013 was created by playing fraud as consideration money disclosed to be paid through cheques could not be transferred to the bank account of the appellant company rather it was kept pending to be presented in the bank till expiry of the validity time of cheques and there was interpolation made in the cheques in the year portion, making 2013 as 2015. Learned counsel contends that in fact, the cheques dated 16.05.2013 were re-validated on 16.05.2015 and before its presentation, the respondents had already closed the bank account on 30.09.2013 itself. Hence, on presentation of the cheques on 30.05.2015 the same were dishonored. Learned counsel contends that in the event of non-payment of consideration money, the plaintiff appellant would have charge on the property which was subject matter of sale deed in view of the provisions of Section 55(4)(b) and 55(5)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. In the circumstance, it would be just and proper to restrain the respondents from transferring the said property to anyone else, till adjudication of the suit.

5. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the transferor of plaintiff company through registered sale deed dated 17.05.2013 was none else than the husband of Smt. Suman Gurjar who has filed the suit on behalf of the same company. Learned senior counsel submits that recitals in the sale deed would clearly depict that the entire consideration money, i.e. one crore was paid through four cheques dated 16.05.2013 and remaining two lakhs was paid through cash on the date of execution of the sale deed, it is recited specifically that from the date of execution of the sale deed, title would pass to defendant No. 1 and possession was also handed over to defendant No. 1 in respect of the said property. Learned senior counsel next contends that there is no reasonable justification to not present the cheques soon after its receipt and keep it to expire and get it validated by making interpolation in the year of issuance and thereafter presenting the same to the bank after expiry of two years. Learned counsel contends that entire exercise of interpolation was done with intent to avoid the statutory bar to bring a suit for recovery of consideration money. Learned counsel has referred para-3 of the written statement filed in the suit which is being reproduced below:—

“That without prejudice to defence otherwise of defendants, it is submitted that as per contents of plaint a