Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Chandra Poddar vs Ashok Payasi on 28 June, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 28th OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 2718 of 2022
Between:-
SATISH CHANDRA PODDAR S/O LATE SHRI
D.P.PODDAR , AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D-1,
BLOCK IDEAL HILLS APARTMENT IN FRONT
OF SAIL BABA MANDIR, GWARIGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHISH KUMAR NEMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ASHOK PAYASI S/O LATE SHRI RAVISHANKAR
PAYAS I R/O HOUSE NO.1201, IN FRONT OF
VIKASH COACHING INFRONT OF GOUTAM JEE
KEE MADHIYA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUNIL PAYASI S/O LATE SHRI RAVISHANKER
PAYAS I R/O HOUSE NO. 1201 INFRONT OF
VIKASH COACHING, INFRONT OF GOUTAM JEE
KEE MADIHYA JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SANJAY PAYASI S/O LATE SHRI RAVISHANKER
PAYAS I R/O HOUSE NO. 1201 INFRONT OF
VIKASH COACHING, INFRONT OF GOUTAM JEE
KEE MADIHYA JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ASHISH PAYASI S/O LATE SHRI BRAHAMDATT
PAYA S I R/O INDRA GANDHI WARD LAL
HAWELI GHARHA JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
6. PRAVEEN PAYASI S/O LATE SHRI
SAN
Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR
BRAHAMDATT PAYASI R/O INDRA GANDHI
SALUNKE
Date: 2022.06.30 18:21:34 IST WARD LAL HAWELI GHARHA JABALPUR (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2
7. SOURABH PAYASI S/O LATE SHRI
BRAHAMDATT PAYASI R/O INDRA GANDHI
WARD LAL HAWELI GHARHA JABALPUR (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. HARISH PAYASI S/O LATE SHRI BRAHAMDATT
PAYA S I R/O INDRA GANDHI WARD LAL
HAWELI GHARHA JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
()
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Shri Ashish Kumar Nema, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard.
This miscellaneous appeal is filed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved of order dated 26/03/2022 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil suit no.114A/2021 refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and rejecting the application for grant of injunction.
Appellant'€™s case is that appellant had executed an agreement with respondent no.1 to 3 on 05/07/2021 for purchasing agricultural land contained in Khasra No. 205/1, 205/2, 333/1, 333/2, 334/1, 334/2, measuring 5.12 hectare at Mouza-Megeli District Jabalpur. An advance of Rs.11 lacs was paid by the plaintiff. The condition for execution of sale deed that defendant will obtain demarcation of the agricultural land and after demarcation defendant will intimate to the plaintiff about the factum of demarcation and within 1 month of demarcation plaintiff will pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant and get sale deed executed.
It is submitted that appellant got public notice published in newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 10/07/2021, when he came to know that certain litigation is pending in regard to the said Signature Not Verified SAN lands. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking a direction that defendants be Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR stopped from selling or transferring the suit land to any third party. SALUNKE Date: 2022.06.30 18:21:34 IST 3 Learned trial court has rejected this application on the ground that court should be convinced on the basis of the material available that there exists a prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff.
In the present case, defendants disputed the facts and submitted that they had never executed any agreement but on the contrary had obtained a sum of Rs.11 lacs as loan and for the security of the loan executed an agreement. Since they have returned the loan amount, no injunction can be granted against them.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on order dated 01/08/2019 passed by a coordinate Bench in W.P No. 5914/2012 (Omprakash Vs. Ganesh Shankar Mehta) to submit that even if a document is unregistered it can be used for collateral purpose. However facts of the present case are different. Issue which emerges for consideration before this Court is whether the plaintiff can maintain a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of unregistered agreement.
Law in this regard is well settled in case of Ajay Narang Vs. M/s. Ram Enterprizes, ILR 2011 MP 2162, it is held that plaintiff without claiming specific performance of the agreement cannot claim injunction and suit itself is not maintainable, therefore, the question of existence of prima facie case does not arise.
Thus in view of the settled legal position, no infirmity can be attributed to the impugned order refusing to grant of interim injunction. Therefore this appeal fails and is dismissed (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE tarun Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2022.06.30 18:21:34 IST