Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra vs Namdev Developers (Llc) Through ... on 26 May, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
1 MA-10034-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
MISC. APPEAL No. 10034 of 2024
MAHENDRA
Versus
NAMDEV DEVELOPERS (LLC) THROUGH DIRECTOR / PARTNER/
OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI MANOJ AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amar Singh Rathore - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
Shri Amit Nahar, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].
Heard On : 08.05.2025
Delivered On : 26.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Order XLIII Rule
1 of The CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by 26th
District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.1181-A/2024 whereby the application
filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has been
dismissed and grant of interim injunction in favour of the appellant has
consequently been denied. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that The State of Madhya
Pradesh/respondent no.6, under the directive of the Government of Madhya
Pradesh through the Ministry of Public Asset Management and Madhya
Pradesh State Asset Management Company Limited, vide its letter
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
2 MA-10034-2024
No.62/Bu.S./2000 dated 03.10.2020 was tasked with facilitating the disposal
of unused assets. In this regard, a notification was issued subsequently for
the sale of property situated at Khasra No.72/1/1/2 ad-measuring1810 sqmtr
of Ward No.36, Nipaniya, District, Indore. Pursuant to said notification, the
property was listed for sale on the PAYM portal through a tender process and
the highest bid (H1) of Rs.9,15,17,100/- was received in Auction
No.2022_MPAMC_240344_1 from respondent no.1. Consequently, the
Govt. of M.P. issued a Letter of Intent on 06.032023 and Letter of Award on
06.04.2023 and allotted the property to respondent no.1. Further, some
authorized broker of respondent no.1 approached to the appellant offering the
said property for sale to the appellant. Pursuant to which, the respondent no.1
agreed to sell the said property to appellant for consideration of Rs.13.5
crores. The terms and conditions were formalized and an agreement to sale
was executed on 25.03.2023 between the parties. In terms of the agreement
to sale, Rs.68/-lacs were paid to the respondent no.1 by the appellant. Under
the said agreement, it was agreed that the respondent shall bear the
responsibility to removal of encroachment, provide NOCs from various
departments, ensure proper measurement through Govt. Officials and other
formalities including resolving the objections, if so raised and thereafter, the
second installment was required to be paid by the appellant. Respondent
No.1 informed that a 100ft wide road is proposed adjacent to the land in
question and 730sqmtr. land is inclusive in the said road, therefore, the
respondent failed in fulfilling the agreed obligations. After the said scenario,
the appellant himself found the revised value of the remaining land as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
3 MA-10034-2024
Rs.5,46,06,888/-.
3. Based on the said difficulties, respondent no.1 has filed a writ
petition bearing WP No.19630/2023 seeking necessary directions before this
High Court. Vide order dated 18.08.2023, the writ petition was allowed and
the High court has directed the Additional Managing Direction of Madhya
Pradesh State Asset Management Company Ltd. and Collector Indore to
address pending representations of the respondent within 15 days and as a
result thereoff, the Collector, Indore vide its letter dated 03.10.2023
addressing respondent no.1 inform that demarcation of the disputed land had
been completed, boundary poles were installed and encroachments under the
boundaries have also identified for removal and ultimately on 28.10.2023,
the Tehsildar has removed the encroachment. Thereafter, the Town and
Country Planning Department has also granted permission for additional
construction on the land in question, but since, the hike in price, even after
repeated attempts, the respondent has shown reluctance to execute the
agreement and pressurized the appellant to execute fresh agreement dated
29.11.2023 and later on 05.12.2023, respondent nos.1 and 3 in collusion with
other respondents have executed a sale deed in favour of respondent no.2.
The appellant has lodged an FIR in this regard against the respondents at
police station Lasudiya, Indore on 28.05.2024.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conducts and illegal act of the
respondents, the appellant has filed a suit against the respondents seeking
relief of Declaration, cancellation of sale deed dated 05.12.2023, permanent
injunction and for specific performance of the sale agreement dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
4 MA-10034-2024
25.03.2023. The appellant has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 of CPC but the learned trial Court has dismissed the same by passing
the impugned order dated 26.11.2024. Hence, the present miscellaneous
appeal before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent
no.1/Namdev Develpers is (LLP) Limited Liability Partnership Firm through
Authorized Representative Manoj Sharma, respondent No.2/ Jai Badrinath
Developers is also a partnership firm in the partnership of Manoj Sharma and
Ritesh Gupta who are respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively. It is submitted
that the while dismissing the application of the appellant, the learned trial
Court has erred in considering the readiness and willingness of the appellant
to perform the obligation of the agreement. It is further submitted that the
Court has not considered that the appellant has taken all possible steps for
performance of the contract. The dispute is arisen due to proposal of
100meter road traversing the land in question reflected in the master plan and
due to which the proposed road significantly impacted the land area available
for transfer to the appellant for development. It is also submitted that due to
such proposal of Govt. of M.P., the respondent himself has withheld the
payment of second installment payable to Madhya Pradesh State Asset
Management Company Ltd.. It is further submitted that out of the total 1810
sqmtr. area, 730sqmtr. area was proposed and earmarked for the proposed
road under the master plan and therefore, only 1080sqmtr. area was
transferable to the appellant for his utilization and the appellant as has
reevaluated the remaining land to the tune of Rs.5,46,,06,888/- and further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
5 MA-10034-2024
communicated this fact to the respondents and in consequence of which, the
respondent has filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being WP
No.19630/2023 and vide order dated 18.08.2023, the petition was disposed
off and after repeated attempts, the encroachments were removed, therefore,
the conducts of the appellants was not in the nature of unwillingness.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court
has erred in considering that the further agreement dated 29.11.2023 has
been executed under coercion and duress. It is further submitted that the
learned trial Court has erred in considering and deciding the balance of
convenience in favour of the respondents. The learned trial Court has failed
the specific nature of the agreement. It is further submitted that the
appellant's conduct demonstrated consistent efforts to fulfill their obligations,
whereas the respondents acted in bad faith by executing a subsequent
agreement and obstructing the rights of the appellant. It is further submitted
that the confiscation of old agreement vide agreement dated 29.11.2023 and
further execution of the sale deed are illegal. It is further submitted that the
repayment of 90% of the amount and deduction of 10% as well in pursuant
to the agreement dated 25.03.2023, are also illegal and improper. Hence,
prays for setting aside the impugned judgment.
7. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.S.
Vidyanadam vs. Vairavan (1197) 3 SCC 1 and MC. Chacko vs. State Bank
of Travancore (1970) 1 SCC 902 .
8. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents have opposed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
6 MA-10034-2024
averments made by counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned
order passed by learned trial Court wherein the application under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of interim
injunction has been dismissed. Counsel for the respondents submits that the
plaintiff/appellant has violated the terms of agreement to sale dated
25.03.2023 by not making the payment as stipulated in the agreement and
even raised the objections at various time based on the proposed
development or master plan and ultimately has not complied with the
agreement till 03.04.2023. It is further submitted that the appellant has failed
to adduce any evidence with regard to his readiness and willingness and even
no notice or information for making or availability of the funds has been sent
to the respondents with regard to execution of the agreement dated
25.03.2023. The appellant himself has also issued Jahir Suchna on
20.11.2024 claiming himself to be the owner of the land in question whereas,
neither the agreement has been complied with nor any deed has been
executed by the respondents in his favour, therefore, the good faith of the
appellant is only an ostentatious nature of submissions. It is further submitted
that plaintiff/appellant has also never tried to alter the time of agreement. It is
further submitted that the second agreement dated 29.11.2023 has been
executed by the appellant with his free will and consent and the allegations
of duress and pressure are baseless baseless. It is also submitted that the
appellant has tried to give criminal colour to this civil dispute by lodging FIR
against the respondents.
9. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
7 MA-10034-2024
that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the factum of readiness and
willingness, non-compliance of the agreement dated 23.05.2023 and further
agreement by the appellant dated 29.11.2023, legal objections and hurdles
towards the land in question on the part of Govt. and the legal rights of the
respondents on the suit land as well and therefore, the impugned order has
been passed rightly in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the
amount was duly returned to the appellant in terms of the agreement and no
illegal deduction has been made. It is further submitted that further payment
to the respondents by the appellant only just one day prior from issuance of
the notice under Section 80 of CPC and six days prior to filing of the civil
suit, without any information or prior notice to the respondents, is itself
sufficient to show mala fide intentions of the appellant. The learned trial
Court has considered each and every aspect of the case in accordance with
the available evidence on record and under the facts and circumstances of the
case, therefore, no interference is called for with the findings of leaned trial
Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. In support of their contentions, learned counsels for the
respondents have relied upon U.N. Krishnamurthy vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy
[2023 (11) SCC 775, Kalawati Vs. Rakesh Kumar [2018 (3) SCC 658], Atma
Ram vs. Charanjit Singh [2020 (3) SCC 311], Surinder Kaur (dead) Through
LRs vs. Bahadur Singh (dead) through LRs [2019 (8) SCC 575], Vijay
Kumar And Ors. vs. Om Prakash [2019 (17) SCC 429], Pydi Ramana @
Ramulu vs. Davarasety Manmadha Rao [2024 (7) SCC 515], Wander Ltd. vs.
Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 (supp) SCC 727] and Rajendra Singh Rawat vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
8 MA-10034-2024
State of Madhya Pradesh [2012 SCC OnLine MP 7275].
11. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record as
well as the impugned order.
12. Primarily, from the face of submissions of the appellant and
respondents as well as from the impugned order, it is reflecting that the
questions of tender process by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh through the
Ministry of Public Asset Management and Madhya Pradesh State Asset
Management Company Limited/respondent no.6, issuance of Letter of Intent
dated 06.03.2023, Letter of Award dated 06.04.2023 agreement executed
between the appellant and respondent dated 23.05.2023 and further
subsequent proceedings for removal of the encroachment from the land in
question, are not disputed by each of the parties and not required to be
ruminated by this Court.
13. The core question before this Court is that whether the learned trial
Court has committed error of law and fact in considering the fact whether the
appellant has complied or performed with the agreement dated 23.05.2023
based on the terms contained therein while deciding application filed by the
appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC or not. For conclusion of
the aforesaid question, this Court has to consider the terms and conditions of
the agreement to sale dated 23.05.2023. The important clauses on which the
present appeal is based i.e. clause Nos.2, 3, 4 and 10 are reproduced here as
under:-
02. यह क उ भूिम को मुझ अनुबंधकता ने इसके मूल वामी म य दे श टे ट
असेट मेनेजमट कंपनी िलिमटे ड से दनांक 27.12.2022 को जसको विधवत ् प से
नीलामी ारा आबं टत क है । उ भूिम क व पित म य दे श टे ट असेट मेनेजमट
कंपनी िलिमटे ड ारा िन वदा आमं ण के मा यम से दनांक 27.12.2022 को नीलामी
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
9 MA-10034-2024
के प म द गई थी। यह क उ भूिम मुझ अनुबंधकता ारा म य दे श टे ट असेट
मेनेजमट कंपनी िलिमटे ड से 9,15,17,100-00 अ र नौ करोड़ पं ह लाख स ह हजार
एक सौ पये म य क गई ह जसके एवज म मुझ अनुबंधकता ारा म य दे श
टे ट असेट मेनेजमट कंपनी िलिमटे ड को 2,28,79,275-00 अ र दो करोड़ अ ठाईस
लाख उनअ सी हजार दो सौ पचह र पये का भुगतान दनांक 03.04.2023 को कया
जाना है जसम 10,50,000-00 अ र दस लाख पचास हजार मा आई.सी.आई.सी
बक शाखा महाल मी नगर इ दौर के मा यम से खाता मांक 004105007284 म जो
क महाल मी नगर शाखा से आर.ट .जी.एस ारा बयाने के प म दान कये जा रहे
है । े ता ारा 64,50,000/- पये अ र चौसठ लाख पचास हजार मा आर.ट .जी.एस
के प म म य दे श प लक वभाग को अदा करने हे तु अनुबंध कता को दान कये
जाएंगे दनांक-03.04.2023 को बाक का पैसा व े ता ारा सशत वभाग को अदा कये
जाएंगे।
03. तीय क त क रािश पये - 2,28,79,275/- दोन प के ारा आधी आधी जो
क 11439637.5/- येक के ारा वभाग को द जावेगी। जसम े ता प अपना
ह सा व े ता प के खाते म बतोर सौदा पेटे जमा करे गा और व े ता ारा इस रािश
क पावती े ता प क पावती जावेगी।
04. तीय क त के बाद े ता ारा जन भी अिधकृ त य य /सं था के नाम पर
भूखंड को व य कया जाना है उन भूखंड को नािमत के अनुसार वभा जत कराने
क ज मेदार अनुबंध कता क होगी। नािमत होने क शेष रािश जो क 26818912.5/-
अ र पये - दो करोड़ अडसठ लाख अठारह हजार नौ सौ बारह पये एवं 50 पैसे मा
क रािश द जावेगी।
10. यह क अनुबंधकता, अनुबंध अनुसार व य प (र ज ) का पंजीयन
अनुबंध हता या उनके ारा िनदिशत के हत म पूण अथवा भाग म करने म टाल-
टू ल या हले-हवाले करे तो अनुबंध हता को यह अिधकार होगा क वह अनुबंधकता
के व स म यायालय म '' पेिश फक परफारमस आफ द का े ट टू सेल'' का
वाद दायर करके यायालय के मा यम से अपने हत म उ संप क रज
संपा दत करवा लेवे, तथा यायालयीन कायवाह म लगने वाला सम त कार का हजा
खचा अनुबंधकता से वसूल करने का अिधकार होगा। इसम अनुबंधकता को कोई
आप नह ं होगी। इसी कार य द िनधा रत अविध म अनुबंध हता ारा टालटू ल,
चूक या शेष रह स पूण व य मू य क रािश अदा नह ं क जाती है या अनुबंध हता
ारा अनुबंध प िनर त कया जाता है तो उस दशा म अनुबंधकता को यह अिधकार
होगा क वह बयाना पेटे ा रािश म से 10 ितशत रािश वयं के हत म फारफ ट
(राजसात) कर लेव। उसके प ात ् यह अनुबंध वत: िनर त हो जावेगा, जो
अनुबंध हता को वीकार है ।
14. From bare perusal of the clauses of the agreement dated
23.05.2023, the agreement to sale has been executed between the parties for
Rs.13.5 crores, the appellant was required to pay first installment of
Rs.2,28,79,275/- by the respondent to the State of M.P. on or before
03.04.2023 and out of which, Rs.10.50,000/- was required to be paid through
RTGS and Rs.64,50,000/- was required to be paid by the appellant to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
10 MA-10034-2024
respondent and remaining amount shall be stipulated to be paid till
03.04.2023. As per clause (2) of the said agreement, second installment of
Rs.2,28,79,725/- shall be paid by the respondent and half of the said
installment i.e. Rs.1,14,39,637.5/- shall be paid by the appellant to the
respondent no.1. Further, as per clause (10) of the said agreement, in case
the respondents avoid execution of said agreement, the appellant shall be at
liberty to proceed before the Court and it is further mentioned that if the
appellant fails to pay the amount within the stipulated period, the respondent
shall be at right to forfeit the 10% amount paid by the appellant and then the
agreement stands cancelled automatically.
15. For fulfillment of the terms and conditions as contained in para
no.1 and 2 of the agreement dated 25.03.2023, the plaintiff/appellant has
certainly not filed any evidence neither before the learned trial Court nor
before this Court except the submissions of payment of Rs.68lacs to the
respondents. Further, since as per the agreement, the respondent no.1 has
also agreed to comply with the agreement and has make all efforts to remove
the encroachments even also filed the writ petition before this Court and
ultimately, the same was removed. Further, from the bare perusal of the
record and submissions, it is clear that the appellant/plaintiff has avoided
further payment to the respondent due to only a proposed 100mtr vide road
adjacent or including the area of 730 sqmtr of the land in question whereas
there is no evidence adduced by the appellant for finalization by the said
proposed master plan by the Govt. of Madhaya Pradesh. Otherwise also, he
himself has revalued the the cost of remaining area of 1030 sqmtr. of land in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
11 MA-10034-2024
question also as per his own wish only without any modification or
correction in the agreement with the respondents. In conspectus of the
aforesaid, the appellant has not paid the complete amount of first installment,
therefore, the stipulation contained in clause 10 of the agreement is
applicable on the appellant.
16. It is also evident that the appellant has also signed another
agreement dated 29.11.2023 with respondents with a ratio of 10% shares of
the appellant and 90% shares of the respondents with regard to the land in
question. The agreement dated 29.11.2023 is clearly indicating cancellation
of earlier agreement dated 25.03.2023 and the same has duly been signed by
the appellant as well. However, he has alleged coercion and duress and in
this way, an FIR has also been lodged by the appellant, but same has no
relevancy when deciding the application for temporary injunction. For the
sake of convenient, the excerpt of agreement dated 29.11.2023 is reproduced
below:
यह क मनोज शमा पता व. ी यामलाल शमा िनवासी िश क कालोनी डबरा जला
वािलयर म. . ारा एक जमीन एम.पी असे स कंपनी िलिमटे ड पता - चौथी मं जल
45 ए अरे रा ह स भोपाल म. . वभाग से टडर ारा 1810 कवेअर भूिम नामदे व
डे हलपस के नाम से ली गयी है । जसका अनुबंध महे दवाकर पता व. ी
सीताराम जी दवाकर पता - 592 से टर आर महाल मी नगर इ दौर से कया गया
था। उ अनुबंध को िनर त कर नया अनुबंध जय ब नाथ डे हलपस के नाम से कर
रहे है । जसम क महे दवाकर 10 ितशत के पाटनर है । रतेश गु ा पता ी
महे शचं गु ा 50 ितशत के पाटनर है एवं मनोज शमा 40 ितशत के पाटनर है ।
जसक र ज वभाग ारा जय ब नाथ डे हलपस के नाम से कर द जावेगी।
उपरो जयब नाथ पाटनरशीप फम है । एवं नामदे व डे हलपस म जो पया महे
दवाकर के ारा दया गया था। वह वापस कर नए िसरे से जय ब नाथ डे हलपस मे
जमा कया जावेगा। जय ब नाथ डे हलपस म महे दवाकर क 10 ितशत क
पाटनरशीप है , जब इसक र ज वभाग ारा उ फम के नाम से कर द जावेगी।
तब नामदे व डे हलपस एवं महे दवाकर के म य कया हुआ पुराना अनुबंध वत:
ह िनर त माना जावेगा।
17. So far as the readiness and willingness is concerned, if the
appellant was ready and willing to perform the contract, absolutely he was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
12 MA-10034-2024
required to comply with the terms and conditions within the stipulated period
of time and since he was not ready and willing, he has avoided the same on
one or the other pretext and ultimately, singed the another agreement dated
29.11.2023 with the respondents. Therefore, the act of the appellant clearly
shows that he was never willing and ready. Further, no efforts have been
made by the plaintiff to extend the period of payment and terms of
agreement dated 25.03.2023. Even otherwise, the inadequate payment so
made by the appellant was already refunded to him by the respondents and
the deduction of 10% of the said amount is in connivance with the terms and
conditions contained under clause 10 of the agreement dated 25.03.2023.
18. On this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex in the case of U.N.
Krishnamurthy vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy [2023 (11) SCC 775 has held that
the plaintiff is duty bound to produce the evidence reflecting his readiness
and willingness. The relevant paragraphs is reproduced here as under:-
21. It is well settled that, in a suit for Specific Performance of an
agreement, it is for the Plaintiff to prove his readiness and
willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement. Where
a certain amount has been paid in advance and the balance is
required to be paid within a stipulated time, it is for the Plaintiff to
show that he was in a position to pay the balance money. The
Plaintiff has to prove that he has the money or has alternatively
made necessary arrangements to get the money. In this case, the
Original Defendant/Appellants have all along contended that the
Plaintiff Respondent neither offered to pay nor was in a position to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
13 MA-10034-2024
pay the balance consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-.
19. In view of the aforesaid settled position, in the case at hand, the
appellant has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the
contract between the parties and at no point of time, he has made any
application to even modify the stipulated terms of payment towards the
agreement. Apart that there is a distinction between the terms 'readiness' and
'willingness'. 'Readiness' is the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the
contract which includes his financial position to pay the sale consideration.
'Willingness' is the conduct of the party. As such, in the instant case, the
appellant has prima facie failed to prove both i.e. readiness and willingness
and therefore, no prima facie case is made out in favour of
appellant/plaintiff.
20. Further, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss is
concerned, the registered sale deed dated 05.12.2023 has been executed in
favour of respondent no.2 by respondent no.1 after payment of whole
consideration amount to respondent no.6/State. In such condition, since the
entire exercise has been done by the respondent and payment has also been
made in entirety, therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the
respondent, hence, the respondents have all rights to protect their rights by
way of available remedies which they have done. Therefore, if in such
condition, the temporary injunction is granted in favour of the appellant, the
respondents will certainly face the irreparable loss under such
circumstances.
21. So far as the authorities cited by counsel for the appellant in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
14 MA-10034-2024
case of K.S. Vidyanadam (supra) is concerned, in this case, the plaintiff has
purchased the property prior to litigation and paid the amount as advance,
whereas another purchaser has purchased the same property even after first
purchaser has litigated the suit property, hence, the right of first purchaser
was maintained by Hon'ble Apex Court, whereas, in the present case, the
appellant has even not paid the complete payment of first installment,
therefore, the appellant cannot be afforded any benefit being the different on
factual and legal matrix of the case, hence, discarded.
22. So far as the the authority relied upon by the appellant in the case
of M. C. Chacko (supra) is concerned, the said suit was filed for decree of
the amount pending in the account and hence, having no relevancy with the
facts of present case neither on facts nor on law, therefore, the same is
distinguished.
23. So far as the consideration of appeal against dismissal of
injunction is concerned, in the case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P)
Limited 1990 (supp) SCC 727, the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex court has
observed as under:-
9. The appeals before the Division Bench were against
the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such
appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the
exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and
substitute its own discretion except where the discretion
has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
capriciously or perversely or where the court had
ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or
refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against
exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on
principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
15 MA-10034-2024
and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one
reached by the court below if the one reached by the
court was reasonably possible on the material. The
appellate court would normally not be justified in
interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal
solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter
at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary
conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the
Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact
that the appellate court would have taken a different
view may not justify interference with the trial court's
exercise of discretion.
Emphasis supplied.
24.The aforesaid view has recently been endorsed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Lavanya C. And Anr. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since
Deceased by LRs and Others [2025 Law Suit (SC) 338].
25. In conspectus of the aforesaid, it emerges that appellate court has
only to consider whether the learned trial Court has acted arbitrarily,
perversely or capriciously while dismissing the application for temporary
injunction, but from the perusal of the record in its entirety, this Court, in its
considered opinion, found that the findings of learned trial Court are well
judicious and are based on the material available before it.
26. In view of the aforesaid elaborate discussion, settled principles of
law, the appellant has failed to comply with the stipulation of payment as
agreed and further agreement, is also singed by the appellant, has frescoed
that he was not ever ready and willing to execute the first agreement dated
25.03.2023 and per contra, the respondents have paid the entire amount and
sale deed is executed by the State of M.P. in their favour. As such, the
findings of learned trial Court are not suffering from any illegality and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13748
16 MA-10034-2024
perversity.
27. However, before parting finally, it has to be clarified that in course
of trial and while adjudicating the case finally, the learned trial shall not be
influenced by the findings and observations made by this Court.
28. In the upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the findings of the
learned trial Court are hereby affirmed and this appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
29. Pending applications, if any stands closed.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
V. JUDGE
amit
