Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aarul Goyal vs Mahesh Kumar on 11 January, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
FA No. 2218 of 2018
(AARUL GOYAL AND OTHERS Vs MAHESH KUMAR AND OTHERS)
Dated : 11-01-2023
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior advocate with Shri Namit Jain, learned
counsel for respondents No.2 to 5.
Heard on I.A. No. 7788/2022, which is an application for temporary
injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the appellants/plaintiffs
stating therein that the appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
decree dated 11.09.2018 in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2018 and the same is pending
before this Court and the appellants have come to know that to frustrate the
claim of the appellants, the respondents are trying to alienate the property in
question.
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
submitted that the aforesaid application was filed before this Court on
23.11.2022 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 30.11.2022, on which date,
counsel for the respondents had sought time to file reply and the matter was
fixed on 14.12.2022 on which date also, the reply was not filed however, it was
filed only on 16.12.2022, prior to that i.e. on 13.12.2022, the respondents had
already sold the property to a third party whereas in their reply, the respondents
are totally silent that the property was already sold by them on 13.12.2022
despite the fact that the reply was filed by them on 16.12.2022. Thus, it is
submitted that the conduct of the respondents has to be looked into and they
cannot claim any relief from this Court in the light of their malafide intention as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 17-01-2023
12:48:50
they have disposed of the property knowing fully well that the matter is pending
in this Court and, have filed a false reply keeping totally silent that the property
has already been sold.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer
and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the suit filed by
the appellants/plaintiffs for specific performance of contract has already been
dismissed holding that Mahesh Kumar, the person with whom the appellant had
entered into an agreement to sell the property was not the only owner of the
property and the property was held by the other respondents also in the joint
ownership.
Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 has submitted that although the respondents have not mentioned that the
property has already been sold but, in their reply, they have clearly stated that
they are entitled to dispose of the property as the suit has already been
dismissed and no prima facie case was found in favour of the appellants.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the record, it is apparent that the property has already been sold by
the respondents. It is also found that the application for temporary injunction in
this appeal was filed on 23.11.2022 whereas, the time was sought by the
respondents to file reply on 30.11.2022, and it was finally filed on 16.12.2022
but in the meantime, they had already sold the property on 13.12.2022 which, in
the considered opinion of this Court cannot be treated as an act done in good
faith and in such circumstances, the respondents cannot claim any equity from
this Court.
Accordingly, the application, I.A. No.7788/2022 is hereby partly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 17-01-2023
12:48:50
allowed and it is directed that till the next date of hearing, the property in
question shall not be alienated further without the leave of this Court.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 17-01-2023
12:48:50
