Sabina, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF -Petitioner has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.4.2005. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide order dated 14.8.2008, Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the application for temporary injunction. The appeal filed by Plaintiff -Petitioner against the said order was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide order dated 18.1.2011. Hence, the present petition by the Plaintiff.
(2.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Petitioner has filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question qua his half share. As per the agreement to sell in question, Plaintiff along with his brother Defendant No. 3 had agreed to purchase the suit property in equal shares. The courts below have declined the relief of temporary injunction on the ground that the Plaintiff was trying to seek part performance of the agreement to sell in question qua his half share. The plea taken by the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 3 in connivance with Defendants No. 1 and 2 had played fraud upon him, was yet to be proved by leading evidence, in this regard. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Moreover, the alienation, if any made during the pendency of the suit would be hit by principle of lis pendens.
(3.) NO ground for interference is made out.;