CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, of the learned Addl. District Judge, Karauli dated 16. 8. 1989 whereby the learned Addl. District Judge has accepted the application of the plaintiff-respondents and has restrained the defendant- appellant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract for sale. The trial court has held that all the three necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction i. e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury exists in favour of the plaintiffs and against the respondents and, therefore, injunction order was passed as aforesaid and hence, this appeal by the defendant.
(2.) MR. R. S. Rathore, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, Shri Sampu who happens to be owner of the property which is the subject matter of the dispute has sold it to the petitioner-defendant by a registered sale-deed dated 26. 4. 1989 and he has been put in possession of that land. The mutation has been recorded in his favour on 30. 6. 1989 as regards 1/2 share of Khasra Nos. 6949 and 6950 and l/4th share of Khasra No. 6953. His contention is that the sale which was executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents has not been registered because it has not been properly stamped and, therefore, such a document is inadmissible in evidence. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-respondents have no right to get any injunction in their favour. It has also been claimed that in the Khasra-Girdhawari of Smvt. Years 2044-47, the name of Sampu has been shown as the owner of the property and he has purchased this property from Sampu. When this document, alleged to be a contract for sale has been executed, Sampu filed a F. I. R. in the year 1986 against Jatansingh, husband and father respectively of Smt. Dulari and Rajendra Singh that he got those signatures from him by coercion and that complaint is still under investigation. It has also been claimed by him that the report of the Commissioner which has been taken into consideration by the learned lower court, he has submitted that he has raised objections against the report and those objections have not been decided by the learned lower court, and, therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated. In this respect, my attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Jagannath vs. Smt. Kamla Bai (1), wherein it has been held that the parties can raise objections and further lead evidence as regards the objections raised by it to the report of the Commissioner and the Court can take into consideration such evidence and decide objections, and if it is not done, the impugned order of the learned District Judge stands vitiated. Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents has submitted that this is an appeal against an interim order and, therefore, this Court should be slow in interfering with the order of learned trial court, if it has been given after due consideration of the evidence on record and unless it is found that the order is perverse or capricious or has been given in disregard of the certain legal principles or without consideration or relevant record, then alone, it should be interferred. In this respect, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Smt. Vimla Devi vs. Jang Bahadur Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Smt. Rama Devi vs. The Sang. Coop. Hou. Soc. Ltd. (3) wherein a learned single Judge of this Court was dealing with an appeal against the order granting injunction by the trial court where the question as regards interference by an appellate court was involved and in that case it has held that the grant of injunction is a discretionary matter and once the trial court has exercised its jurisdiction while granting injunction, the appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere with such a discretionary order. Mr. Goyal has, therefore, prayed that ordinarily in the matter of grant of injunction, interference should not be made. Interference can only be made when the order is perverse, capricious or based on disregard of the material evidence on record. It was next argued by Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent that a document which is construed as a document of sale is not registered then it can be treated to be a document of contract of sale. In this respect, reliance has been placed on Durgadan vs. Devidan (4), wherein it has been held that the sale deed did not amount to sale but only a contract for sale and so, the plaintiff is entitled to sue for specific performance. It was also submitted by Mr. Goyal that the learned trial Judge has pot only taken into consideration the Girdawari entries and the electricity bills but it has also taken into consideration the Commissioner's report and all other relevant material for passing an order to maintain status quo which has been passed by the learned lower court and, thereafter, it has come to the conclusion that all the three necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction exists in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. Mr. Rathore has submitted that although, the Girdawari entries have been taken into consideration but this fact has been overlooked that half of the fields belongs to Shanker and therefore, if there are any Girdhawari entries as regards his possession then it does not mean that Shanker has been put out of the possession. He has submitted that although electricity bills have bene produced but it cannot be said that they relate to the electricity meter which is installed on this well, which is the subject matter of the disputed property. He has submitted that his objections as regards Commissioner's report has not been decided and still the Commissioner's report has been taken into consideration. When the learned trial court has held that Jatansingh is cultivating this field, no objection was raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that this entry relates to the portion of the land which does not belong to Jatansingh. It was also not pleaded that these electricity bills do not relate to the electricity meter which is installed on this well and this objection has also not been raised before the trial court that the Commissioner's report cannot be taken into consideration without deciding his objections. It may be stated here and now that in deciding matters of grant of temporary injunction, the Court is not required to go into the evidence with a critical attitude for its closer scrutiny. It is only required to see that all the three necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction exist in whose favour. The learned trial court after considering Girdawari entries, the electricity bills and the Commissioner's report has come to conclusion that prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiffs. The contract of sale has been referred only for this purpose that at the time of execution of this document, consideration has been received and the land has been handed over to the plaintiffs. The learned trial court did not record any finding whether this document is a document of sale or not, which may conclusively decide the rights of the parties. The mutation has been recorded in favour of the appellant on 30. 6. 1989 i. e. after ad-interim order was passed in favour of the respondents. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to hold that the impugned order is capricious, perverse or has been passed in disregard of the principles of law and the evidence. Consequently, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed summarily. . ;