IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 7509 of 2010 (O&M)

Date of Decision: November 18, 2010

Shashi Dhawan.

…Petitioner

Versus

S.M. Khan and another.

… Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

1.

Whether reporters of local news papers may be

Allowed to see judgment?

2.

To be referred to reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Vibha Dhawan, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Alok Singh, J. (Oral)

Defendant-petitioner has invoked supervisory

jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the order dated

28.09.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Panchkula, thereby rejecting the application moved by

defendant no.1-petitioner herein under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff-

respondent no.1 has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory

injunction restraining the defendant from alienating/disposing

off the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff

C.R. No. 7509 of 2010

and for mandatory injunction directing defendant no.1 to

complete the sale in favour of the plaintiff in terms of oral

agreement and token receipt dated 25.03.2010.

The plaintiff has, inter-alia, alleged in the plaint

that defendant no.1 has approached the plaintiff for sale of 10

marlas single storey house and she told the plaintiff that she

is absolute owner of the suit property and the same is free

from all sorts of encumbrances; plaintiff has accepted the

proposal of defendant no.1 on 25.03.2010 and all the

conditions of sale were settled orally in the presence of Rajesh

Sharma of Balaji Estate, Daya Sagar Sharma and S.A. Khan

and total sale consideration agreed was Rs.1,48,50,000/-; it is

agreed between the parties that sale shall be completed by

30.05.2010; at the time of agreement, defendant no.1 was not

having the documents of the property and it was settled that a

sum of Rs.2 lac shall be paid as token money and Rs.20 lac

shall be paid as advance money on 29.03.2010 when

defendant no.1 will show the documents of ownership and

formal agreement to sell will be executed. It is further averred

in the plaint that plaintiff has paid Rs. two lakhs on

25.03.2010 and receipt was duly executed specifically stating

therein that Rs. twenty lakhs shall be paid on or before

29.03.2010 at the time of execution of agreement to sell and

rest of the sale consideration in full shall be paid on or before

30.05.2010, last date for the execution of sale deed. Plaintiff

2

C.R. No. 7509 of 2010

has further contended that he was ready with Rs.20 lac as per

the agreement with defendant no.1 and was always ready and

willing to perform his part of the agreement, however,

meanwhile, plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 is not

the sole owner, rather, Mr. Om Parkash Sharma is the another

co-owner. Plaintiff has also issued notice to defendant no.1 to

perform his part of the contract, however, defendant no.1

threatened to create third party interest,hence, plaintiff filed

suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, as well as

mandatory injunction.

Defendant no.1 has moved an application under

Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. saying therein that oral agreement to

execute the agreement is nothing and cannot be enforced. It

has been averred in the application that suit simplicitor for

prohibitory injunction is barred by Section 41(h) of the

Specific Relief Act, since plaintiff has failed to file suit for

specific performance of the contract. Learned Trial Court vide

the impugned order, rejected the application moved by

defendant no.1, hence, defence no.1 has approached this

Court by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.

Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate, assisted by

Ms. Vibha Dhawan, Advocate argued that