MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J: --This first appeal is directed against the order of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra, dated 19-4-1995 whereby application of the plaintiff/respondents for the grant of temporary injunction was accepted subject to depositing an amount of Rs.52,90,425 within 30 days in the Court, and status quo was ordered to be maintained.
2. Plaintiff-respondents brought a suit for specific performance of sale agreement, dated 21-3-1994 whereby defendant-appellants entered into an agreement to sell Atif Flour Mills for a sum of Rs.1,24,00,000 out of which Rs.10,00,000 were paid as earnest money. The agreement embodies that the possession of the mills was given to the plaintiffs, and the defendant No.2 was to assist them for 45 days in its operation. Thereafter, the plaintiff if with concurrence opted to take upon themselves any liability of I.D.B.P., WAPDA or other institutions/person, the same was to be adjusted against sale consideration and the balance was payable to the defendants.
3.According to the plaintiffs they have paid Rs.71,09,575 to the defendants and have been asking the defendants to finalise the deed but they avoided on one or the other pretext. An application for temporary injunction was also filed praying to restrain the defendants from getting the power supply of the mills disconnected and from the stoppage of the supply of wheat to the mills. It was also prayed that they be restrained from interfering in to the running, administration and management of the mills. The learned trial Court accepted the application in the terms as stated above vide its order, dated 17-5-1995 which has been impugned herein. .
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any equitable relief as they did not perform their part of the contract within the stipulated period. He urged that the sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff is not Rs.1,24,00,000 but the same is Rs.2,24,00,000 and relied on a document placed by him on file as Annqxure `A' which is written on the letter head pad of Atif Flour Mills Ltd. He submitted that as the damages are assessable in terms of money, therefore, the application- should have been refused.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the document referred to by the learned counsel is a fictitious and manipulated one and has no bearing at all, and even if for argument sake, it is supposed to have been entered into by the parties, the appellants cannot draw any premium out of it as they allegedly joined hands in commission of fraud.' Learned counsel referred to the agreement to sell and argued that it has been duly executed on the stamp paper which loudly speak of the delivery of possession of the mills to the respondents alongwith 12 Kanals of land, its machinery, appurtenance and fixtures, which cannot be interfered with by the appellants. He submitted that the appellants have admittedly received an amount of Rs.10;00,000 at the time of execution of agreement to sell, out of which the outstanding electricity bill was to be paid and to get electricity restored to the mills. As per clause (4) it was agreed upon that the liabilities of over Rs.75,00,000 for which a suit of the bank was pending, the plaintiff would pay the payable amount according to schedule appended with agreement which would be adjusted against the sale consideration. After running the mills for one and a half month with the assistance of the appellants, with the mutual consent the amount which the respondents take upon themselves for payment to the IDBP, WAPDA and other concerns would be adjustable towards the sale consideration. He referred to the receipts executed on the stamp papers whereby the appellants have received Rs.42,80,000 out of the total consideration of Rs.1,24,00,000 upto 10-5- 1994. Another receipt, dated 30-7-1994 indicates that appellants received Rs.1,50,000 and yet by another receipt they acknowledged to have received Rs.71,09,575 upto 6-2-1995, While referring to the aforesaid receipts he maintained that in all these documents the appellants have repeatedly admitted that the total sale consideration was Rs.1,24,00,000. In such circumstances, he maintained that the trial Court has properly exercised its jurisdiction in granting temporary injunction, which deserves no interference from this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for, the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
5. As per contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants the mill was sold for Rs.2,24,00,000 on the basis of the alleged agreement written on the letter head pad. It is significant to note that this document was for the first time introduced in this Court. Had this document been in existence, this could have been produced alongwith the reply to the application for temporary injunction submitted in the trial Court or at least reference to it could have been made in the said reply. Its non-mentioning and non-production in the first Court makes it doubious. Morever, its contents constitute a commission of fraud from which the parties cannot draw any lawful benefit. The agreement to sell and the receipts duly executed on the stamp paper repeatedly speak of the sale consideration to be Rs.1,24,00,000 out of which 'Rs.71,09,575 have been received by the appellants upto 6-2-1995. In a suit for specific performance, where possession of the property has been delivered to the plaintiffs in pursuance to the agreement to sell, in such an eventuality the defendants cannot be permitted to interfere with plaintiff's possession. Ordinarily the Court during the pendency of such a suit grant temporary injunction to restrain the vendors from interfering with the property if the execution of agreement of sale is not denied which recite delivery of possession to the vendees. If the applicant seeking injunction show that other side intend to breach the contract, it is sufficient to warrant the interference of a Court to issue an injunction. In this case the vendors attempted to defeat the contract through letters addressed to Executive Engineer WAPDA for disconnection of the power supply to the mills and District Food Controller, Mansehra for suspension of the foodgrain licence, and they succeeded in obtaining the order of suspension I from the later. The Court while granting temporary injunction acts in aid of the legal right so that the property may be preserved in status quo, and restrain the commission of any act which may involve the breach of the contract. The object of temporary injunction is merely to preserve the property in dispute by maintaining the status quo until the rights of the parties are finally adjudicated on merits. The order of the learned trial Court seems to be quite reasonable which do not warrant any interference by this Court. As such this appeal is dismissed. Costs to follow the events.
6. Keeping in view the nature of the suit and the subject-matter we direct the trial Court to decide the case on day to day hearing within 4 months.