Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinay Kumar Agrawal vs Niranjan Badgaiya on 18 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 18 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 4918 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. VINAY KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O RAMPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
HOUSE NO. 203 WARD NO. 03 RANGLAL CHOUKH
PURANI BASTI MAIHAR TAHSIL MAIHAR
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRANAV AGRAWAL S/O SHRI RAMESH AGRAWL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/O HOUSE NO 53 WARD NO 14 KATRA BAZAR
MAIHAR TAHSIL MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SHAILENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NIRANJAN BADGAIYA S/O LATE SHRI
BRINDAWAN BADGAIYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HOUSE NO. 141 WARD NO. 13 NEAR DEVDHARA
TALAB KACHLOHA MAIHAR TAHSIL MAIHAR
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR R/O SATNA DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SURENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR AND SHRI
RITHWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2 . By the present petition, petitioners who are plaintiffs before the trial
Court has challenged the order passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of
Civil Judge Senior Division, Maihar, District Satna in RCSA/460/2023
(Registration No.103/2023) dated 27.7.2023, whereby the application filed by
the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuance of
temporary injunction was dismissed.
3 . According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners
has challenged the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Maihar,
District Satna in Civil Appeal no.8/2023 dated 7.8.2023, whereby appeal
preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed.
4. The short facts of the case are that petitioners have entered into an
agreement to purchase the subjected land from the respondent No.1 on
9.5.2022 and the period was fixed for payment of consideration amount. As the
respondent No.1 has not executed the sale deed, the petitioners filed a suit for
specific performance of contract and along with the suit the application for
issuance of temporary injunction was filed. According to the respondent No.1,
the time was essence to the contract and petitioners failed to make the payment
of the part sale consideration within time period fixed by the parties and,
therefore, the petitioners was at fault and the agreement was cancelled
automatically, according to the terms of the agreement, due to failure of the
petitioners to pay the balance amount.
5. Learned trial Court after considering the pleadings and documents of
the parties, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners and the said order
was upheld by the lower appellate court.
6. After hearing both the parties and after considering the documents
available on record and in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of
Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd) Vs. Baldev Dass reported in (2004) 8 SCC
488, I deem it proper to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the
parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the ownership of the property
and the parties are restrained from creating any third party right or interest in the
property or alienate the same for a period of six months from today and the trial
Court will also try to dispose of the case within six months from today.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
irf.
