IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14226 of 2020 ==========================================================

SAUMILBHAI PRABODHCHANDRA PATEL Versus LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI SHANKARBHAI SOMABHAI VALAND &

ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PRATIK JASANI FOR MR KUNTAL A JOSHI(6269) for the Petitioner(s)

No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HARSH V GAJJAR(7828) for the Respondent(s) No.

10,11,1.1,1.2,1.3,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 02/08/2024

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate for the respective parties.

2. Two concurrent findings rendered by the courts below rejecting to grant injunction is sought to be challenged in this petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner - original plaintiff preferred the suit against the respondents-org. defendants for specific performance and declaration contending that the respondents vide agreement dated 15-11-2018 entered into an Agreement to Sale with Ganeshbhai Harsukhbhai Dave. It is further submitted that full sale consideration being Rs.3,21,000/- of the property situated at Survey No.394, Village Nandej, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad has been paid by the petitioner and received by the respondents at the time of executing the Agreement to Sale. That on the same day, one Power of Attorney of the said property was also given to the petitioner by the respondents; but thereafter, the respondents did not perform their part of the obligation and did not execute the registered sale-deed in compliance of the said agreement and hence the suit in question came to be filed against the respondents with interim injunction application at Exh.5; but the same has been rejected by the trial court.

3.1 Unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate court and thus present petition is filed questioning the two concurrent findings declining to grant injunction.

4. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani for the petitioner that the courts below have committed serious error in not granting injunction. He would further submit that agreement to sell is not in dispute. He would further submit that even the suit was filed within the limitation. He would further submit that there is no dispute about the amount of sale consideration paid to the respondent i.e. Rs.3,51,000/- which is stated in the body of the agreement to sell. In these circumstances, the petitioner has prima facie case which indicates that petitioner who has purchased the property has acquired the right to get the sale-deed registered in his favour.

4.1 He would further submit that since the respondent no.1 is not paying the heed to the specific performance of the agreement to sell, it constrained the petitioner to file the suit before the trial court seeking relief of specific performance. He would further submit that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to save the interest of the plaintiff in the subject matter and at the same time to prevent the defendant from changing the hands of the property the plaintiff so that plaintiff if can succeed in the suit can get the decree of specific performance of the subject matter only from the respondent–seller and is not required to travel from here to there to take the fruits of the decree. He would further submit that injunction would not cause any prejudice to the other side as the respondents are in possession of the suit property and enjoying the possession and therefore under the circumstances three golden principle of O.39 R.1 and 2 of the CPC have been totally missed by the courts below and serious error of law has been committed.

4.2 Upon above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit to allow this petition and to grant the order of status-quo.

5. On the other hand, strongly objecting the present petition, learned Advocate M