- (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated October 26, 1982, whereby the temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos. 4 to 6 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property, was passed, in appeal, though the trial Court had refused to grant such an injunction.
(2.) Admittedly, Sohan Lal, Mohan Lal and Ved Parkash, defendant Nos. 4 to 6, filed the suit for possession of the suit property which was decreed by the trial Court on November 10, 1970, on payment of Rs. 20,000/-. Ultimately, the regular second appeal which had arisen out of the said suit, filed in this Court on behalf of the defendants, was dismissed on January 20, 1982, and thus, the said decree passed by the trial Court was maintained. However, during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the plaintiffs in the present suit, entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property, on November 3, 1981, and, thus, they claimed themselves to be in its possession in part performance thereof. On these allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction. Along with it, they also filed an application for the grant of an ad interim injunction as to restrain defendant Nos. 4 to 6 from executing the decree passed in their favour and dispossessing them in execution thereof. The application was resisted on behalf of the defendants, i.e., Sohan Lal and others. Therein, the trial Court ultimately, declined the grant of the ad interim injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs with the following observations, - "On the other hand Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, clearly provides that during the pendency in any Court of any suit or proceeding in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to effect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree which may be made therein. This provision clearly placed an embargo on defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to enter into an agreement of sale of the land, in dispute, with the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs who derive their title through the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 cannot take advantage of the aforesaid agreement. From the aforesaid position it clearly emerges that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case to resist the taking of possession by defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in execution of the decree passed in their favour. Thus, the ratio of the two authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. The balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiffs as defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are taking possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs under execution of a valid decree passed in their favour." In the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case as they had agreed to purchase the suit property from defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and had got possession thereof in part performance of the alleged agreement. Thus, according to the learned Additional District Judge, it could not be said that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case in their favour. In view of that finding, ad interim injunction was granted in their favour. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants in whose favour the decree was passed against Sadhu Ram and others, defendant Nos. 1 to 3, have come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) On the last date of hearing, the case was adjourned to find out the stage of the suit in the trial Court. It has been stated at the bar that the suit is still at the initial stages. Issues were framed in November, and the case has now been fixed for February 1984, for the evidence of the plaintiffs.;