IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 6553 of 2023 FOR SPECIAL METALIKS LIMITED Versus GOKUL BUILT HOME PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocates for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

Heard on : 12.01.2026 Pronounced on : 20.01.2026 ORDER This MA under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC has been preferred by appellant (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1) to challenge the th impugned order dated 14.08.2023, passed by 15 District Judge, Jabalpur in allowing a temporary injunction application of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by respondent No.1(hereinafter referred to as plaintiff), and directing appellant and other defendants not to create any interest in or transfer the disputed property, till the decision of Civil Suit.

2. Briefly stated, case of plaintiff was that he entered into a registered agreement to sale with all the three defendants, who failed to execute sale deed in his favour and later made attempts to dispose off the disputed property. Civil Suit for seeking declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff and the application for seeking temporary injunction against transfer of disputed property or creating interest therein filed along with was allowed under the impugned order.

3. Defendant No.1 contested the injunction application, claiming that under the agreement, consideration amount was to be paid in installments and two installments of Rs.95,00,000/- each were due under the terms of agreement, respectively on 21.09.2022 and 14.09.2022, which plaintiff failed to pay. Contention of defendant No.1 was that on account of this default on the part of plaintiff, registered sale deed could not be executed. He further submitted that on the pretext of illness of father and an income tax raid, plaintiff communicated his inability in timely deposit of installment amounts, but these grounds were fictitious. Defendant No.1 although considered these excuses and extended the period of execution of sale deed under new terms, but plaintiff again failed to honor his commitment and therefore, committed breach of contract.

4. The learned trial Court considered the rival submissions and allowed the injunction application.

5. Defendant No.1. has challenged the impugned order on the all those grounds that were taken by him before the Court below. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from material illegality as it ignored the fact that plaintiff had failed to perform his part of contract within the time stipulated in agreement while time was the essence of contract. A request has therefore been made in the appeal to allow it and set aside the impugned order.

6. Plaintiff failed to appear before this appellate Court to contest the appeal.

7. Arguments of learned counsel for the defendant No.1 have been heard and the record placed before this Court has been looked into.

8. Admittedly, a registered agreement to sale was executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 whereunder defendant No.1 agreed to sell the property in dispute to plaintiff against a total consideration amount of Rs.2,41,23,750/-. The agreement itself reflects what would be the mode of payment. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.51,23,750/- was paid by plaintiff to defendant No.1 under three installments agreed upon in terms of contract. The balance amount was to be paid under remaining two equal installments of Rs.95,00,000/- on the scheduled dates, but admittedly, plaintiff failed to honor this part of agreement. It also needs to be mention here that all the performances under the agreement were agreed to be settled by 21.11.2022 and it was also agreed between the parties that the sale deed shall be executed on that date. Clause No.4 of the agreement added a further condition specifically stipulating that if buyer fails to pay the balance amount, seller would have a right to demand a hi