[2026:RJ-JD:12395]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 749/2026

1. Puro Devi W/o Thakra Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Ram Nagar, Barmer City, Tehsil And District Barmer, Rajasthan

2. Thakra Ram S/o Khartha Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Ram Nagar, Barmer City, Tehsil And District Barmer, Rajasthan ----Appellants Versus Dharma Ram S/o Hajri Ram, Chavaa, Tehsil Barmer Rural, District Barmer, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi &

Mr. Mahendra Thanvi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Judgment

16/03/2026

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants–defendants aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12.12.2025 passed by the District Judge, Barmer in Civil Appeal Decree No. 03/2025 (C.I.S. No. 11/2025) titled “Dharma Ram vs. Puro Devi & Anr.” whereby first appeal preferred by the respondent–plaintiff has been allowed and the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Barmer in Civil Original Suit No. 59/2025 (C.I.S. No. Civil Suit/59/2025) titled “Puro Devi & Anr. vs. Dharma Ram”, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act was allowed, has been set aside.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellate court below has failed to appreciate the settled position of law that agreement to sale dated 28.05.2025, on the basis of which the plaintiff has claimed possession, is an unregistered document, though, it is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(f) & (g) of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1989, where possession of the immovable property is alleged to have been transferred. It is contended that such an unregistered agreement to sale is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to claim protection of possession by way of injunction.

4. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the proper remedy available to the plaintiff was to institute a suit for specific performance of the agreement, and not a suit for injunction simpliciter. Learned counsel drawing attention of this Court to Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, contended that an injunction cannot be granted when an equally efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiff.

5. It is further contended that the trial court had rightly allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act and rejected the plaint. However, the first appellate court has erred in setting aside the said order.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi, 2022 INSC

1011;

(ii) Vasava Lilaben D/o Kesurbhai & Anr. vs.

Bharatkumar Baldevbhai Desai, R/Civil Revision Application No. 68/2019 decided on 03.07.2025;

(iii) Priyanka Vivek Batra vs. Neeru Malik &

Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 917

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting impugned judgment, submits that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint. It is argued that the bar contained under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act relates to the grant of relief and does not render the institution of the suit itself non-maintainable at the threshold. It is submitted that whether the plaintiff is ultimately entitled to injunction or not, is a matter to be adjudicated upon after trial.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Satwant Singh (deceased) through LR’s vs.

Ranjit Singh & Ors., 2023(4) Civil Court Cases 473 (P&H);

(ii) Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. Alok Nanda, 2025(4)

Civil Court Cases 705 (Uttarakhand);

(iii) G. Nagaraj & Anr. vs. B.P. Mruthunjayanna & Ors., 2023(2) Civ