Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jawahar vs Deepesh on 19 February, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4512
1 MA-1069-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1069 of 2025
JAWAHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
DEEPESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Kumar Samdani, learned counsel for the appellants (through
VC).
ORDER
1. Notice has not been issued. The matter is heard on the point of stay.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in this case, as per the
contract, respondent has to perform his duties with regard to agreement to sale. He
has only deposited Rs. 1,40,00,000/- out of the amount Rs. 6,78,30,000/- As per
the contract, the respondent was bounded to execute the sale deed within time but
even then he has not shown his readiness and willingness. So far as the injunction
order passed by the learned Trial Court is concerned, it is not required as per the
principle of jurisprudence. On these grounds, counsel prayed for setting aside the
injunction order
3. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, I
have gone through the impugned order.
4. The learned Trial Court has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choukasi alias Harish
Ambalal Chouksi and another in Civil Appeal No. 13001/2024(Special Leave
Petition No. 252/2023), order dated 22.11.2024 which is quoted as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4512
2 MA-1069-2025
" provisions of Section 52 of the T. P. Act whereunder all such
transfers cannot but abide by the result of the suit. It is true that
the doctrine of lis pendens as enunciated in Section 52 of the T.
P. Act takes care of all pendente lite transfers; but it may not
always be good enough to take fullest care of the plaintiffs
interest vis-a-vis such a transfer. We may give one appropriate
illustration of a suit for specific performance of contract based on
an agreement of sale. In a suit wherein the plaintiff prays for
specific performance and if the defendant is not restrained from
selling the property to a third party and accordingly a third party
purchases the same bona fide for value without any notice of the
pending litigation and spends a huge sum for the improvement
thereof or for construction thereon, the equity in his favour may
intervene to persuade the Court to decline, in the exercise of its
discretion, the equitable relief of specific performance to the
plaintiff at the trial and to award damages only in favour of the
plaintiff. It must be noted that Rule 1 of Order 39 of the Code
clearly provides for interim injunction restraining the alienation
or sale of the suit property and if the doctrine of lis pendens as
enacted in Section 52 of the T. P. Act was regarded to have
provided all the panacea against pendente lite transfers, the
Legislature would not have provided in Rule 1 for interim!
injunction restraining the transfer of suit property. Rule 1 of
Order 39, in our view, clearly demonstrates that, notwithstanding
the Rule of lis pendens in Section 52 of the T. P. Act, there can
be occasion for the grant of injunction restraining pendente lite
transfers in a fit and proper case."
5. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Trial Court
regarding granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff, does not warrant any
interference.
6. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
