HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & LADAKH

AT JAMMU

MA No.11/2022 (O&M)

Reserved on: 21.12.2022

Pronounced on: 31.12.2022

Parshotam Singh

...Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Anil Bhan, Advocate

v/s

Amarjeet Singh and anr.

.....Respondent (s)

Through :-

Mr. Aayush Pangotra, Advocate

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil 1^st Miscellaneous Appeal in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, for short) has been preferred, by virtue of

which, challenge has been thrown to order dated 31.05.2022 passed by learned

Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as trial court) in file

No. 13/Civil Suit/2021 titled Sh. Parshotam Singh v. Amarjeet Singh and

another, vide which application filed by the appellant for interim relief has been

dismissed.

2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall

be apt to give an overview of the facts giving rise to the present case.

2 MA No. 11/2022

3. The appellant laid a Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell

dated 23.12.2020 in the trial Court stating inter alia that agreement to sell was

executed and duly notarized between him and the respondents whereby

respondents agreed to sell the suit land measuring 08 kanals and 12 marlas

comprising Khasra No. 329 situate at Village Phinder, Tehsil R. S. Pura in his

favour for a sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- (rupees sixteen lacs and fifty

thousand) per kanal. The appellant, at the time of execution of agreement to sell,

paid an earnest amount of Rs.5.00 lacs, which was accepted by the respondents.

As per the Agreement in question, the appellant was obliged to pay the balance

sale consideration within six months, at the time of registration of sale deed.

4. According to the appellant, he approached the respondents on various

occasions in the month of June, 2021 for execution of sale deed and requested

him to obtain Fard Intikhab from the concerned revenue authorities, but

respondents sought some time to procure revenue extracts. It is allegation of the

appellant that respondents not only delayed the execution of formal deed on lame

excuses, but tried to enter into some negotiations with respect to the suit land

with some unknown persons. It has been asserted by the appellant that he has

always showed his readiness and willingness to purchase the suit schedule land

but it were the respondents who delayed the execution of sale deed on one

pretext or the other.

5. The respondents entered appearance in the trial Court and filed written

statement whereby they are primarily affront with the contention that since the

appellant/plaintiff could not arrange the balance sale consideration, therefore, he

had not shown readiness and willingness on his part to perform the agreement in

3 MA No. 11/2022

question. It is pertinent to mention that respondents have also contended that they

are still ready to execute the sale deed, in case, appellant pays the balance sale

consideration.

6. Alongside the suit, appellant had filed an application for temporary

injunction. Initially vide order dated 23.06.2021, learned trial Court directed the

parties to maintain status quo qua the suit land. However, on consideration of

pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court vide impugned order has dismissed

the said application for temporary injunction on the predominant premise that

sinc