PERMOD KOHLI - (1.) LEGALITY and Proprietary of the order dated 17.12.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala in appeal against the order dated 4.6.2009 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Patiala has been questioned in the present Revision Petition invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purposes of the present revision petition are being noticed hereinafter. Petitioners herein filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.5.2004 allegedly executed by the defendants -respondents in respect to suit land measuring 43 kanals 17 « marlas situated at Village Sanour, Tehsil and District Patiala. It was inter alia pleaded that an amount of Rs. 20, 50,000/ -(Rupees Twenty Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) was paid as earnest money and the defendants agreed to execute and register sale deed in respect to the suit land on 14.4.2006. It is further stated that sale price was fixed at the rate of Rs. 37,50,000/ -per killa. The plaintiffs, further alleged that they reached the Office of Sub -Registrar Patiala alongwith balance sale consideration. In view of the public holidays on 14.4.2006 to 16.4.2006 they waited for the defendants in the Office of Sub -Registrar but they did not turn up. Plaintiffs accordingly made an application dated 13.4.2006 supported by an affidavit before Sub -Registrar, Patiala the same was returned to them with the endorsement of their presence. Plaintiffs, further alleged that they again visited the Office Sub -Registrar, Patiala on 17.4.2006 with the hope that the defendants will execute sale deed but defendants did not turn up and an endorsement was again sought from the Office of the Sub -Registrar regarding their presence. Plaintiffs -petitioners further pleaded that they were always willing to pay the balance sale consideration and were ready with the balance sale consideration but the defendants did not execute the sale deed. Simultaneously with the filing of the suit plaintiffs also made an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land during the pendency of the suit. On being put to notice the defendants appeared and filed their reply. While admitting the agreement to sell dated 29.5.2004 and receipt of earnest money it was pleaded that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs is forged and fabricated document. The defendants, however, claimed to be in possession of an agreement of even date.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties the trial Court vide its detailed and well reasoned order dated 4.6.2009 granted ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land to any other person except the plaintiff till the decision of the case.;