MP High Court Upholds Denial of Interim Injunction in Property Dispute, Cites Lack of Readiness and Subsequent Agreement

Jabalpur , Madhya Pradesh - The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, in a judgment delivered on May 26, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by Mahendra (appellant) against an order of the 26th District Judge, Indore. The lower court had denied his application for an interim injunction in a suit concerning a property sale agreement. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prem Narayan Singh affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to demonstrate prima facie readiness and willingness to fulfill the original agreement and the existence of a subsequent agreement that superseded the first.

The case, MA No. 10034 of 2024, involved an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) against the trial court's order dated November 26, 2024, which dismissed Mahendra 's plea for an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a property (Khasra No.72/1/1/2, Nipaniya, Indore) auctioned by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Namdev Developers (LLC) (Respondent No. 1) emerged as the highest bidder at Rs. 9,15,17,100/- and received a Letter of Award on April 6, 2023.

Subsequently, Mahendra (appellant) and Namdev Developers entered into an "agreement to sale" on March 25, 2023, for the said property for a consideration of Rs. 13.5 crores, with Mahendra paying Rs. 68 lakhs as part of the deal. The agreement stipulated that Namdev Developers would handle encroachments, NOCs, and other formalities. A dispute arose when a proposed 100ft wide road was found to affect 730 sq.mtr. of the 1810 sq.mtr. plot, leading Mahendra to re-evaluate the remaining land's value.

Namdev Developers filed a writ petition (WP No.19630/2023) to address these issues, which led to the removal of encroachments by October 28, 2023. However, Mahendra alleged that due to a price hike, Namdev Developers became reluctant to execute the sale deed and pressured him into a fresh agreement dated November 29, 2023. Later, on December 5, 2023, Namdev Developers executed a sale deed in favor of Jai Badrinath Developers (Respondent No. 2). Mahendra then filed a civil suit seeking a declaration, cancellation of the sale deed dated 05.12.2023, permanent injunction, and specific performance of the original agreement dated March 25, 2023, along with an application for interim injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Contentions (Shri Amar Singh Rathore ): * The trial court erred in assessing his readiness and willingness, despite his consistent efforts to fulfill contractual obligations. * The dispute arose due to the proposed road impacting the land area, which even led Respondent No. 1 to withhold payments to the State. * The subsequent agreement dated November 29, 2023, was executed under coercion and duress. * The balance of convenience was wrongly decided in favor of the respondents. * The forfeiture of 10% of the advance amount was illegal.

Respondents' Contentions (Shri Manu Maheshwari and Shri Amit Nahar): * The appellant violated the terms of the March 25, 2023 agreement by not making timely payments and raising objections based on the master plan. * The appellant failed to prove his readiness and willingness, providing no evidence of available funds. * The second agreement dated November 29, 2023, was executed with free will, and allegations of duress were baseless. * The appellant attempted to give a criminal color to a civil dispute by lodging an FIR. * The trial court rightly considered all aspects, including the appellant's non-compliance and the subsequent agreement. * The advance amount was duly returned after a 10% deduction as per the terms of the first agreement.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Prem Narayan Singh meticulously examined the terms of the agreement dated March 25, 2023. The Court noted: > "From bare perusal of the clauses of the agreement dated 25.03.2023... the appellant was required to pay first installment... As per clause (10) of the said agreement, ... if the appellant fails to pay the amount within the stipulated period, the respondent shall be at right to forfeit the 10% amount paid by the appellant and then the agreement stands cancelled automatically."

The Court found that the appellant "has certainly not filed any evidence neither before the learned trial Court nor before this Court except the submissions of payment of Rs.68lacs to the respondents." It observed that the appellant avoided further payment due to the proposed road without any evidence of the master plan's finalization and had unilaterally revalued the land.

Crucially, the Court highlighted the second agreement: > "It is also evident that the appellant has also signed another agreement dated 29.11.2023 with respondents... The agreement dated 29.11.2023 is clearly indicating cancellation of earlier agreement dated 25.03.2023 and the same has duly been signed by the appellant as well. However, he has alleged coercion and duress... but same has no relevancy when deciding the application for temporary injunction."

Regarding readiness and willingness, the Court cited U.N. Krishnamurthy vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy [2023 (11) SCC 775] , which mandates the plaintiff to prove this aspect. The judgment stated: > "In the instant case, the appellant has prima facie failed to prove both i.e. readiness and willingness and therefore, no prima facie case is made out in favour of appellant/plaintiff."

On the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the Court noted that the sale deed dated December 5, 2023, was already executed in favor of Respondent No. 2 after full payment to the State. Therefore, granting an injunction would cause irreparable loss to the respondents.

The Court distinguished the appellant's reliance on K.S. Vidyanadam vs. Vairavan and M.C. Chacko vs. State Bank of Travancore as factually and legally different.

Referring to Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Limited [1990 (supp) SCC 727] , the Court reiterated the limited scope of appellate interference with the trial court's discretion in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions, stating: > "An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material."

Decision

The High Court concluded that the appellant failed to comply with the payment stipulations of the first agreement and subsequently signed another agreement, indicating he was not ready and willing to execute the first one. Conversely, the respondents had completed the transaction with the State.

The Court held: > "In conspectus of the aforesaid, it emerges that appellate court has only to consider whether the learned trial Court has acted arbitrarily, perversely or capriciously while dismissing the application for temporary injunction, but from the perusal of the record in its entirety, this Court, in its considered opinion, found that the findings of learned trial Court are well judicious and are based on the material available before it."

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court's findings were affirmed. The Court, however, clarified that the trial court should not be influenced by these observations during the final adjudication of the suit.