Temporary injunctions can be granted without a permanent injunction request if prima facie evidence establishes a case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI st ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 3432 of 2024 KANHAIYALAL Versus MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Baldeep Singh Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER The appellant has filed this Misc. Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r)

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2024 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.01-A/2022 by the II District Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch (M.P.), whereby the application filed by respondents No.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was allowed and an order was passed restraining the appellant / defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant / defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit property situated at survey No.288 (area 0.101 hectare), survey No.289/1 (area 0.134 hectare) and survey No.290/1 (area 0.030 hectare). The total area of land comprising in these three survey numbers is admeasuring 0.265 hectare situated in Mouza Manasa, Tehsil Manasa, District Neemuch.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE

3. As per the plaint, respondents No.1 and 2 have entered into an agreement to sale with the appellant / defendant No.1 for a land having area of 25,000 sq. ft. out of the said suit land on 23.10.2020. The rate of sale consideration was Rs.500/- per sq. ft. As per the plaint averments, respondents No.1 and 2 have paid the appellant an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-

in cash on the said date i.e. 23.10.2020.

4. Apart from this, respondents No.1 and 2 also stated in the plaint that the appellant purchased a shop constructed by the Janpad Panchayat, Manasa i.e. shop No.3 for a sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-, which was to be deducted from the sale consideration of suit land. Furthermore, respondents No.1 and 2 claim to have made the following payment: Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellant on 05.11.2021, Rs.22,00,000/- and Rs.12,50,000/- through different cheques. Additionally, an amount of Rs.9,28,000/- was paid to one Mr. Deepak Wadhwa and Rs.2,72,000/- was paid in small installments over time. Thus, it has been stated in the plaint that respondents No.1 and 2 have paid a total of Rs.72,00,000/- (through cash and bank payments) for the agricultural land including Rs.30,00,000/-for shop No.3, therefore, a total sale consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/- has been paid by the respondents No.1 and

2 / plaintiffs to the appellant / defendant No.1.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court. After issuing a registered notice dated 23.04.2022, the plaintiff requested the appellant / defendant No.1 that they should be present before the sub-registrar on 10.05.2022 for execution of the sale deeds for the aforesaid agriculture land. However, The appellant / defendant No.1 failed to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE appear for the execution of the sale deed on the said date. Consequently, a public notice was published in the daily newspaper "Amrit Kumbh" on 23.04.2022 and the civil suit was filed before the learned trial Court. Along with the suit, respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an interim injunction to restrain the appellant / defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the case.

6. The appellant / defendant No.1 submitted a reply to the said application, disputing the existence of the agreement to sale dated 23.10.2020. After considering the rival submissions and prime facie case of the respondents No.1 and 2 / plaintiffs, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order on 03.04.2024, granting a limited temporary injunction restraining the appellant / defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the civi