Rajasthan High Court: Sabina, J. dismissed the appeal on the ground that party will suffer an irreparable loss if the application was allowed.
An appeal was made challenging the order which was made on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Rohit Khandelwal, counsel for the appellant submits that that the property-in-question was owned by Shobhagmal Jain which the appellant agreed to purchase. Earnest money was paid to the original owner. Thereafter, the original owner executed Power of Attorney in favor of his son. Son of the owner executed a sale deed in favor of the respondent. Appellant filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed in his favor. It was further submitted that the original owner was ready to pay the sale consideration to the subsequent purchaser as his son wrongly sold the property-in-question. Thus an application for a temporary injunction was made.
High Court was required to see whether the plaintiff has a prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favor and in case, the Temporary Injunction was not granted in favor of the plaintiff, he would suffer an irreparable loss. The court thus, after discussing the relevant question held that respondent can be said to be a bonafide purchaser for consideration. Hence, in case Temporary Injunction is granted in favor of the appellant, the respondent would suffer an irreparable loss as he would not be able to enjoy the property purchased by him in the manner he liked. Moreover, the principle of Lis Pendens would apply. Thus, no interference was made by the court. [Rakesh Makwana v. Vishant Infra Projects Llp, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 903, decided on 09-04-2019]
Elobrote more act of section 39 Rule 1 and 2 as per Indian Constitution
I live in U.K. my farther purchased property in 1962. In 1977 we build on the property. From 1962 tell 2022 we had no problem. But in July 2022 my neighbour knocked down boundary wall and broken the locks and now refusing to leave because their names are in land revenue records because my farther did not done intahkal. (1)We have registry proof of sale (2) Electric meter is in our name (3)my farther name is on the building (4)we have been owners for 62year. The plaintiffs have stay order under rules 39 section 1&2 of 151CPC why did Judge give stay order without my story and now the court is only giving dates after date how do I get my farther property back and when