SHIVALIK POWER AND STEEL PVT LTD Vs. AUJASYA AGRO POWER PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 11-5-2005 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2005 (Aujasya Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. Rani Jyoti Kumari and 3 Ors.) whereby allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant/appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

(2.) FACTS material for disposal of this appeal, in brief compass, are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 - Aujasya Agro Power Pvt. Ltd., filed a Civil Suit No. 34-A/2005 on 5-2-2005 for specific performance of the contract against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the pleading that respondent Rani Jyoti Kumari - owner of the suit land executed agreement to sell the suit land on 3-12-2004 in his favour and received an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs). Registered sale deed was to be executed in terms of the said agreement by 31-1-2005. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 invited objections against the said sale by issuing public notice in daily newspaper and in response to that Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Raipur raised its objection dated 19-1-2005 alleging that the suit lands have been mortgaged with the Central Bank of India as collateral security against some agricultural loan thereafter some correspondence regarding dispute took place in between the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Afterwards, respondent No. 2 terminated the said agreement to sell and refunded the amount taken in advance along with interest.

(3.) LEARNED Court below holding the principle of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, allowed the application and issued directions that respondent No. 2 shall not sell or alienate the suit property. Appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall maintain status quo and no new construction should be made. Respondent No. 3 shall not register and deliver the sale deed to appellant.