R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE appellants have challenged the order dated 26th March, 2010, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the respondents.
(2.) IT is the case of the appellants that on 29th March, 2007, the appellants and the respondents had entered into an agreement to sell by which the respondents agreed to purchase the land and building thereon, owned and possessed by the appellants, for a consideration of Rs. 8,41,00,000/ -. It was further agreed between the parties that on receipt of the full payment, a sale deed shall be executed by the appellants No. l, M/s Tiger Continental Wildlife Resorts Ltd. in favour of the respondents. After execution of the agreement to sell, the appellants received a sum of Rs. 2,91,00,000/ - from the respondents. But thereafter, no further payment was received by them from the respondents as per the agreement. Moreover, the cheques given by the respondents, on presentation, were not honoured. Consequently complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction which are still pending. Further, vide notice dated 25th April, 2008, the respondents terminated the aforementioned agreement dated 29.03.2007. On 06.10.2009, the respondents filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking injunction that till the decision of the arbitration proceedings, the appellants be restrained from alienating the property described in the agreement dated 29.03.2007. Vide order dated 26.03.2010, the learned Judge has allowed the application and has restrained the appellants from alienating the property and has further directed the parties to maintain status quo for a period of one month. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Pancham Surana, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has contended that the learned Judge has passed an injunction in perpetuity. According to the order, the appellants were restrained from alienating the property for a period of one month. A condition was imposed that in case the respondents do not initiate the arbitration proceedings within a period of one month, then the order shall lapse automatically. Since the arbitration proceedings have commenced, since the condition of initiating the proceedings has been fulfilled, the said order becomes an order in perpetuity.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. This appeal is highly misconceived. The interpretation given by the learned Counsel is unwarranted. For, the order itself is extremely clear that the order shall be operational only for a period of one month. Since the period of one month is already over, the said order is no longer in force. Thus, the appeal is clearly devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.;