Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner/defendant is aggrieved against the order dt. 02.06.2007 by which the appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs preferred on the refusal of the injunction on their application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC by the trial Court vide order dt. 24.03.2007. Brief facts of the case are that three plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of contract dt. 10.05.1979, in the year 2006 alleging that Sher Singh agreed to sell land belonging to him for his legal necessity and for that purpose, he gave power of attorney to his brothers Kartar Singh and Dalbar Singh who executed agreement to sell in plaintiffs ' favour. Sale deed has not been executed in pursuance of said agreement by the time when present suit was filed in the year 2005. Total land measuring was 9 bighas 18 biswas and total consideration agreed was Rs. 12,000/ -. According to the plaintiffs, the entire consideration was paid to said Sher Singh and possession was taken by the plaintiffs/vendors. Sher Singh died in the year 1979 itself but it has not been mentioned that in which month, he died. Be it as it may be, according to the plaintiffs, on 09.06.1979, Sher Singh 's brother Dalbar Singh extended the time for execution of the sale deed. The plaintiffs when came to know that the suit property has already been sold to the defendant on 20.04.2005, then they filed this suit for specific performance of contract. In the suit, the plaintiffs submitted application for grant of temporary injunction.
(3.) THE trial Court vide order dt. 24.03.2007 observed that the plaintiffs ' own case in the plaint itself was that the power of attorney was given by Sher Singh to Kartar Singh and Dalbar Singh whereas alleged power of attorney is in favour of only Kartar Singh and giving of power of attorney even to Kartar Singh is doubtful in the light of the language used in the agreement which purports to say that the power of attorney will be given to Kartar Singh subsequent to the date of agreement but copy of power of attorney produced in the Court discloses that the power of attorney was already given to Kartar Singh. The trial Court also took note of the fact that endorsement of extension of time by Dalbar Singh was wholly unauthorised because there was no power of attorney in favour of Dalbar Singh so that he could have extended the time. The trial Court also observed that Dalbar Singh had no authority to execute the agreement to sell or to extend the time. The trial Court also observed that for an alleged agreement for sale of the year 1979, the suit for specific performance of contract has been filed in the year 2006. The trial Court also did not found the possession of the plaintiffs on the land in question and, therefore, dismissed the injunction application vide order dt. 24.03.2007.;