[2026:RJ-JP:472]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 542/2025

1. Vishnu Kumar Tank S/o Late Shri Sooraj Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Naya Ghar, Gali No. 3, Gulab Bari, Ajmer, 2. Uday Singh Sankhla S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh Sankhla, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Mali Mohalla, Kundan Nagar, Ajmer.

3. Hoshiyar Singh Sankhla S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh Sankhla, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Mali Mohalla, Kundan Nagar, Ajmer.

4. Pushkar Narayan S/o Late Shri Mohan, Aged About 56 Years, Ro Chhoti Basti, Mali Mohalla, Pushkar, District Ajmer.

5. Raju S/o Late Shri Mohan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Chhoti Basti, Mali Mohalla, Pushkar, District Ajmer.

----Appellants-Defendaants Versus

1. Mahesh Gehlot S/o Shri Ganesh Gehlot, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Tyagiram Ji Ki Kothi, Motisar Road, Ganahera, Pushkar District Ajmer.

2. Dilip Ojha S/o Shri Chandrashekhar Ojha, Aged About 68 Years, R/o C/o Shri Mahesh Gehlot S/o Shri Ganesh Gehlot, R/o Tyagiram Ji Ki Kothi, Motisar Road, Ganahera, Pushkar District Ajmer.

3. Ghanshyam Pawar S/o Shri Jethanand Panwar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o C/o Shri Mahesh Gehlot S/o Shri Ganesh Gehlot, R/o Tyagiram Ji Ki Kothi, Motisar Road, Ganahera, Pushkar District Ajmer.

----Respondents-Plaintiffs For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma with Mr. Mahesh Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

08/01/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the appeal is being finally heard.

2. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.4, Ajmer whereby the application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was decided against the present appellants-defendants wherein they were restrained from alienating the land in question and also from demolition or construction on the property in dispute till the adjudication of suit proceedings.

3. Briefly stated facts are that the applicants had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreements dated 09.11.2023, 10.11.2023 & 29.11.2023 in regard to a land ad-measuring 5 bighas.

4. It was pleaded in the suit that the defendants received certain amounts as part consideration for sale of disputed property. The applicants according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, requested defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for execution of the agreement after diwali and also for the receipt of Rs.1,00,00,000/- but the same was lingered upon by the defendants.

5. The applicants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the same was being lingered by the defendants and therefore, sent a notice through advocate on 06.01.2024 and the reply to the same was sent by the defendants. The counter to the reply was also sent by the advocate on 15.01.2024 and the defendants were requested to execute the agreement but in spite of the request, no action was taken by the defendants. Therefore, the applicants had filed the suit for specific performance.

6. The defendants filed the reply denying the averments of the plaint and contended that no written agreement was ever entered between the parties. In para Nos. 3, 4 & 5 only, the averments of receipt is there which goes to show that there was no written agreement between the applicants and the defendants. The applicants have not impleaded the sisters of non applicant No.1 Vishnu Kumar namely Rajni and Kanta Devi. They further contended that even all the legal successors of Imarti Devi have not been pleaded as party and therefore, the applicants has not come with clean hands.

7. The defendants further pleaded that there was no agreement to receive Rs.1,00,00,000/- as being alleged by the applicant. Moreover, no right, title or interest is created in favour of the applicant. It was argued that merely receipt of Rs. 7,00,000/- and issuance of receipts of that amount do not create any cause of action in favour of the ap