Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3775
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
DEEPAK KHOT, J
SANTOSH MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
PRASOON TANDON – Respondent
MISC. APPEAL No. 6659 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Lal Raj Bahoran Singh Chauhan
For the Respondents: Shri Arunodaya Singh
A party seeking an injunction must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury; failure in any aspect denies relief.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Specific Performance - Appeal against rejection of application for temporary injunction - Appellant alleged to have paid substantial amount under agreement, yet failed to establish a prima facie case and irreparable loss, resulting in dismissal of appeal. (Paras 9 and 12)
(B) Injunction - Principles governing grant of temporary injunction - Plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for injunction. (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellant filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell a share in ancestral property. Payments made by appellant were contested by the respondent. Court considered the absence of proof of actions by the appellant to enforce agreement promptly.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld lower court’s decision that appellant failed to prove a prima facie case; hence, injunction was not warranted.
Issues: Precision in establishing payment source and prompt action to enforce agreements were central to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that failure to show promptness in claiming rights affected appeal and reiterated that the inability to prove a prima facie case negates consideration of irreparable loss.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the case facts and agreement details. (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT nd ON THE 2 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 6659 of 2024 SANTOSH MISHRA Versus PRASOON TANDON Appearance:
Shri Lal Raj Bahoran Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arunodaya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r)
CPC assailing the order dated 27.7.2024 passed by 6th Additional District Judge Rewa in RCSA No.296A/2023.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 30.7.2015 and permanent injunction was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that in the year 2015 the defendant has offered to sell his one third share in the joint ancestral property and that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said share. Accordingly, an agreement to sell the disputed share was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for consideration of Rs.1 Crore on 30.7.2015, which was attested by two witnesses. Pursuant to the said agreement, an amount of Rs.64 Lacs were given by the plaintiff to the defendant on 30.7.2015, Rs.6,04,000/- on 19.12.2019 and Rs.2,00,000/- on Signature Not Verified
22.11.2020, total Rs.72,04,000/-, and receipts thereof have been obtained. On 20.11.2022 the plaintiff found that some construction work was going on in the suit property, hence he tried to contact the defendant and asked to execute the sale-deed. The plaintiff also issued a legal notice to the defendant on 22.12.2022 to execute the sale-deed but the same could not be served. The plaintiff also done paper publication on 17.1.2023. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, however, the defendant has refused to execute the sale-deed. Hence cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff to file suit and it is pleaded that the suit is within limitation.
3. The suit has been replied vide annexure A/9 by filing written statement.
4. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, annexure A/10, has been filed for restraining the defendant from creating 3rd party right in the subject matter of the agreement/suit and not to change the nature of the suit. Reply to the application has been filed vide annexure A/11. It is submitted by the appellant that the learned Court below without considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the appellant has rejected the application by impugned order dated 27.7.2024 passed in RCS A No.296/2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
5. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that though the Court below has opined that on the basis of agreement, the appellant/plaintiff has not taken any steps for partition or demarcation, but has not considered the Signature Not Verified prima facie case in favour of the appellant. It is further held by the court below that the suit has been filed, when the agreement with Shilpi Construction has been executed by the defendant and as Shilpi Construction has not been impleaded as a party defendant, it does not reflect good conduct of the appellant, also opined that the appellant/plaintiff has not disclosed the source of consideration of Rs.72,04,000/- which has been alleged to have been paid under agreement and even did not show the capacity to make such payment. On the aforesaid ground, the learned court below has found that even in case the contract is rescinded by the defendant, the appellant/plaintiff can receive the amount back and as such no irreparable loss would cause to the appellant if the temporary injunction is not granted in his favour.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the said finding and submitted that despite of receipt of payment signed by the defendant, annexure A/3 dated 19.12.2019 and 5.1.2022 which was reduced in writing on t
