SBCMA No.1527/2008
Prithvi Singh Vs. Smt Jadav Devi & Ors.
Dtd. 2.2.2009
!! 1 !!
SBCMA No.1527/2008
Prithvi Singh Vs. Smt Jadav Devi & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 2.2.2009
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.BK Bhatnagar,for the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant has preferred this appeal to challenge
the order of the trial court dated 28th July, 2008 by which
the appellant’s application for grant of temporary injunction
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.
The suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed as back
as in the year 1994. There were 67 defendants. According
to learned counsel for the appellant since there were 67
defendants in the trial court, therefore, time took in
deciding the application as most of the defendants could not
have been served. According to learned counsel for the
appellant the trial court committed serious error of law by
observing that since the original vendor with whom the
SBCMA No.1527/2008
Prithvi Singh Vs. Smt Jadav Devi & Ors.
Dtd. 2.2.2009
!! 2 !!
plaintiff had agreement to sell has already died, therefore,
no prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff-
appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
appellant sought relief that the property in question may
not be alienated during the pendency of the suit.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel
for the appellant and perused the record.
It is very convenient to say that the injunction
application was not decided by the trial court in 14 years
because there were 67 defendants-non-applicants. Neither
the court was powerless nor the CPC is of such nature that
for effective service of large number of defendants cannot
be effected in time and particularly, in the matter where
relief sought is of urgent nature. All other more modes of
service of the defendants could have been used for serving
the defendants by the plaintiff and at the same time, it was
the duty of the court to see that misc. Application for grant
of urgent reliefs may not be dragged for decades as has
been done in this case.
Even if it would have been a good case for grant of
SBCMA No.1527/2008
Prithvi Singh Vs. Smt Jadav Devi & Ors.
Dtd. 2.2.2009
!! 3 !!
temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, the court
after 14 years without any interim relief may have said that
after 14 years, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief
simply because the plaintiff was not vigilant in prosecution
the application for interim relief and when plaintiff can wait
for 14 years for interim order then it is not a case where if
interim relief is not granted there will be irreparable loss to
the plaintiff.
Be it as it may be, the injunction application of the
appellant has been dismissed by the trial court by impugned
order and from facts, it appears that plaintiff’s case is only
for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the
defendants-respondents on the basis of an earlier
agreement to sell in his favour which according to the
plaintiff is dated 6th Oct., 1993 and according to the
plaintiff, he paid the entire amount of the sale consideration
by 17th March, 1994 amounting to Rs.5,61,000/-. The
plaintiff for the reasons best known to him did not file the
suit for specific performance of contract and now more than
14 years have already passed to the said agreement. In
SBCMA No.1527/2008
Prithvi Singh Vs. Smt Jadav Devi & Ors.
Dtd. 2.2.2009
!! 4 !!
these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that
the trial court has committed any error of law or fact in
rejecting the appellant’s application filed for grant of
injunction
Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-