Order

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant–applicant against the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter) in Civil Misc. Case No.02/2022 (C.I.S. No. 02/2022) titled “Shamsuddin vs. Harshvardhan & Ors.”, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant–applicant has instituted a civil suit before the trial court seeking specific performance of agreement, declaration of sale deeds dated 25.01.2021 and 09.11.2021 as void and permanent injunction. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. has also been filed seeking temporary injunction.

3. The case of the appellant, in substance, is that in July 1997, he along with respondent No.1 (Harshvardhan) and one Mahendra Kumar entered into an agreement with Abhinandanmal (father of respondent No.1) for purchase of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.14 admeasuring 2.70 hectares for a total consideration of ₹1.11 crores, with agreed shares of 1/2nd, 1/4th and 1/4th respectively. It is alleged that substantial payments were made and an agreement to sell dated 02.03.1998 was executed. The grievance of the appellant is that despite repeated requests, the sale deed was not executed in his favour and portions of the land were subsequently sold to third parties.

4. The respondents denied the entire claim and contended that no such agreement was ever executed, the document relied upon is forged, and that respondent No.1 has acquired valid title through a will. It is further contended that several third-party rights have already been created and that the suit is hopelessly delayed and not maintainable.

5. Upon hearing the parties, the trial court, by order dated 16.05.2022, rejected the application for temporary injunction.

Hence, the present appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court, while deciding the injunction application, has virtually adjudicated the entire suit by recording conclusive findings regarding possession and validity of the agreement dated02.03.1998, which is impermissible at an interlocutory stage.

8. It is argued that the trial court failed to confine itself to the limited scope of examining prima facie case and instead decided disputed questions of fact. It is urged that adverse findings regarding documents such as the consent letter and surrender deed were recorded without evidence.

9. It is additionally submitted that the trial court ignored the fact that an application for production of the original agreement had already been allowed and wrongly drew adverse inference. The findings regarding absence of appellant’s signature and conduct in subsequent sale deeds were also assailed as perverse.

10. Lastly, it is contended that the consent letter dated 26.09.2011, allegedly acknowledging the agreement, was not properly considered.

11. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions :-

i. Ahmmadsahab Abdul Milla (dead) by proposed LR’s vs. Bibijan and Ors. reported in 2009(3) Supreme 116;

ii. Smt. Lad Kanwar vs. Shri Ladu & Ors. reported in 2015 WLC (Raj) UC 740;

iii. Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others (2024 INSC 913);

iv. Muruganandam vs. Muniyandi (died) through LR’s (2025 INSC 652).

12. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 while supporting the impugned order, submits that the appellant has failed to establish any prima facie case. The agreement relied upon is unregistered, unsupported by original document and denied by all concerned parties.

13. It is further submitted that the appellant has failed to prove any payment and the suit suffers from gross delay of more than