Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Niranjan Singh And Others vs Rajesh Kumar on 30 April, 2013
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR SB CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.4276/11. NIRANJAN SINGH & ANR. APPELLANTS. VS RAJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30TH APRIL, 2013. PRESENT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Mr. N.K. Singhal for the appellants. Mr. H.S. Bikarwar for the respondent. ORDER BY THE COURT :
1. The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC challenging the order dated 8.4.11 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Misc. Civil Case No. 27/11, whereby the trial court has partly allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff.
2. In the instant case it appears that the respondent happens to be the son of appellant No.1 and the brother of appellant No.2. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement allegedly executed by his father i.e. appellant No.1 on 26.8.09. In the said suit the respondent-plaintiff had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction, which was resisted by the appellants-defendants contending interalia that the agreement for sale was forged for which an FIR was also lodged against the plaintiff. The trial court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties partly allowed the application for temporary injunction by the impugned judgment dated 8.4.11 and restrained the appellants-defendants from selling the property in question till the pendency of the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. N.K. Singhal for the appellants that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was the abuse of process of law and that he had sought specific performance of the agreement, which was a forged document and for which an FIR was also registered by the appellant No.1. He has submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has no right in the property in question and therefore the appellants could not be restrained from selling or dealing with the property in question.
4. However, the learned counsel Mr. H.S. Bikarwar for the respondent supporting the impugned order submitted that there is no illegality committed by the trial court, and hence this court should not interfere with the same.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court it appears that it is very unfortunate that the respondent-son has filed the suit against the appellant No.1, who happens to be his father. Since the respondent has sought specific performance of the agreement allegedly executed by the appellant No.1, it appears that there are triable issues involved in the suit. Hence, without entering into the merits of the case, suffice it to say that it would be in the interest of justice if the appellants are restrained from transferring or selling the property in question pending the suit. The court is of the opinion that the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. However, looking to the age of the appellant No.1 and to the relationship between the parties being father and son, the trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI) J.
MRG.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
M.R. Gidwani PS-cum-JW