IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 62 OF 2018 APPELLANTS : 1. Natthu S/o Baliram Nichat, (Ori. Defendants) Aged about 69 yrs., Occ. Cultivator, R/o. Ward No.5, Baripura, Ashti (Shahid), Post & Tah. Ashti (Shahid)

Dist. Wardha.

2. Shamrao S/o Baliram Nichat, Aged about 65 yrs, Occ. Cultivator, R/o. Ashti, Tah. Ashti, Dist. Wardha.

3. Bahinabai S/o Ramdas Sambhe, Aged about 60 yrs, Occ. Cultivator, R/o. Jalgaon (Belora), Tah. Ashti, Dist. Wardha. // VERSUS //

RESPONDENT : Rajendra S/o Tukaram Madankar, (Ori. Plaintiff) Aged about 56 yrs, Occ. Cultivator, R/o. Ward No.5, Talegaon, Ashti Road, Baripura, Ashti (Shahid), Post & Tah.

Ashti, Dist. Wardha.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. S. D. Chopde, Advocate for appellants.

Mr. Shrey Dambhare, Advocate h/f Mr. V. T. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent – sole.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM: V. G. BISHT, J.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 05 /04/2022 . JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 22 /04/2022.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The appellants/original defendants have preferred present appeal against the order dated 16.01.2018 passed below Exh. - 5 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 24/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, thereby allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) and thereby injecting the respondents/defendants, their agents or representatives restrained from disturbing the possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit land until decision of the appeal.

3. The respondent/plaintiff herein has filed suit for specific performance of the contract against the appellants/defendants along with prayer for perpetual injunction. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that appellant/defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the suit land for consideration of Rs. 1,72,500/- and accordingly, he paid earnest money of Rs. 45,000/- to him. Accordingly, an earnest note has been executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of respondent/plaintiff on 10.06.2004 by putting the respondent/plaintiff in possession of the suit land.

4. The respondent/plaintiff alleged that the appellant/ defendant No. 1 tried to take the possession of the suit land in or about the month of October 2009 and therefore, the plaintiff issued notice to defendant to execute sale-deed, however, the defendant failed to execute the same and therefore, suit for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction came to be filed.

5. The appellant/defendant No. 1 resisted the claim by taking defence that blank stamp paper was supplied by him to one Credit Co-operative Society of which the plaintiff is a office- bearer. He alleged that the respondent/plaintiff forged the earnest note by using the said stamp paper and obtained false documents from revenue department by using political pressure.

He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the respondent/plaintiff filed the first appeal bearing R.C.A. No. 24/2017. In the said appeal, the respondent/plaintiff also filed an application for grant of interim relief by way of temporary injunction in order to protect his possession and the learned Appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha after hearing both the parties, allowed the application vide order dated 16.01.2018. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal.

7. Mr. S. D. Chopde, learned Advocate for appellants/ original defendants, submits that it has been very specific defence of the defendants before the Trial Court that earnest note was forged by the respondent/plaintiff and by using political pressure and he also obtained forged revenue documents. Learned counsel took me through the vari