Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anoop Kumar vs . Parkash Chand And on 17 January, 2022
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
Anoop Kumar vs. Parkash Chand and another .
Civil Suit No. 8 of 2022 17.01.2022 Present: Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Issue notice to the defendants returnable on 15th March, 2022. Steps be taken within a week.
OMP No. 25 of 2022 Notice in the aforesaid terms.
r I have gone through the contents of the plaint and the documents annexed by the plaintiff. Vide agreement dated 20th March, 2018, defendant/non- applicant No. 1 had agreed to sell suit land to the plaintiff/applicant for a total consideration of Rs.1,03,51,000/- and the sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 20th December, 2018. Plaintiff/applicant paid a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as earnest money. The time for exection of sale deed was extended till 21st February, 2019. Plaintiff/applicant claims to have requested defendant/non-applicant No.1 to execute the requisite sale deed, but defendant/non- applicant kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly, defendant/non-applicant No.1, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff/applicant, executed sale deed No. 441 dated 17.12.2020 in respect of suit land favouring defendant/non-applicant No.2.
It is alleged by the plaintiff/applicant that sole purpose of defendant/non-applicant No.1 by ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 16:45:01 :::CIS transferring the suit land in favour of defendant/non-
.
applicant No.2 is to cause prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff/applicant. It is also alleged on behalf of plaintiff/applicant that defendant/non-applicant No.2 was having knowledge about the existence of agreement to sell between the plaintiff/applicant and defendant/non-applicant No.1 and he has conspired with defendant/non-applicant No.1 with ulterior motives.
r It is also submitted on behalf of the plaintiff/applicant that in case defendant/non-applicant No.2 is not restrained from changing the nature of the suit land and also from creating any charge/encumberance thereon during the pendency of the suit, he shall be put to irreparable loss and injury and also to multiplicity of litigation.
From the pleadings as well as record, a prima- facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff/applicant. Balance of convenience and irrepairable loss is also in his favour. Hence, the application is allowed. Therefore, defendant/non- applicant No.2 is restrained from changing the nature of the land comprised in Khata Khatoni No. 32min/62, Khasra No. 25 measuring 01-14 bighas, Khata/khatoni No. 34min/67min, Khasra No. 9, 11, 23, 24, 1010/941/19, 1047/1041/941/19, 942/19, kitas-7 measuring 11-08 bighas, khata/khatoni No. 36min/71, Khasra No. 20, measuring 01-18 bighas, Khata/Khatoni ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 16:45:01 :::CIS No. 97min/196 Khasra No. 996/8 measuring 00-06 .
bighas to the extent of share measuring 00-03 bighas, Khata/Khatoni No. 97min/221, Khasra No. 10 and 21 measuring 01-08 bighas and Khata/Khatoni No. 97min/222, Khasra No. 942/22, 991/2, 992/2, kitas-3 measuring 16-19 bighas to the extent of 7/8 share measuring 14-17 bighas (total share measuring 31-16 bighas along with domestic wood, trees, apple orchard, peach orchard and built up structure (house) etc.) situated in mohal Ser Jagas, hadbast No. 58, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. and also from creating any encumberance/charge thereon till further orders.
Compliance under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure be made.
January 17, 2022 (Satyen Vaidya )
(naveen) Vacation Judge
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 16:45:01 :::CIS