2025:UHC:9777 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.302 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the appellant. 2. This Appeal from Order challenges the judgment and order dated 12.08.2025 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tehri Garhwal, in Original Suit No. 21 of 2025, whereby the application for grant of temporary injunction preferred by the plaintiff/ appellant was declined. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent. Along with the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. was filed, which came to be registered as Paper No. 6C2. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, rejected the said application by order dated 12.08.2025 holding that the appellant had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed the fact regarding execution of the agreement dated 18.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the agreement dated 18.02.2025 being unregistered and insufficiently stamped could not have been considered by the trial Court in view of Sections 35 and 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Indian Registration Act, 1908 respectively. It is further submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in relying upon the said inadmissible document while rejecting the injunction application. Learned counsel argued that the registered agreement to sell executed between the parties was a valid and subsisting 2025:UHC:9777 document, which has not been challenged before any competent forum. He submits that even if the respondent alleges that such agreement is a result of fraud, he has not instituted any separate proceeding challenging it nor issued any statutory notice to that effect. He submits that the plaintiff/ appellant expressly stated his willingness to pay the sale consideration of ₹50,00,000/ - within seven days of the respondent fulfilling his contractual obligations. However, the respondent has acted dishonestly with the intention of defeating the appellant’s lawful rights. It was thus argued that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant had made out a prima facie case, that balance of convenience lay in his favour, and that he would suffer irreparable injury if interim protection was denied. 5. Upon careful consideration of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the papers available on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has not committed any material illegality or perversity in rejecting the temporary injunction application. The finding that the appellant suppressed the material fact of execution of the agreement dated 18.02.2025 disentitles him from the discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, whereas the plaintiff falls within the General Category. In view of the statutory bar contained under Section 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste is prohibited from transferring his holding by means of sale, gift, mortgage, or lease in favour of a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste, except with the prior sanction of the Collector. Consequently, the agreement to sell in question is not legally enforceable, as the respondent could not 2025:UHC:9777 have lawfully executed such an agreement in favour of the plaintiff without obtaining the requisite prior permission from the competent authority. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719, held that a person seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands and must show prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable loss. Suppression or misrepresentation of material facts bars such equitable relief. 7. Similarly, in the case of Seema Arshad Zaheer & others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 282, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that interlocutory injunctions are not to be granted merely because the plaintiff has a prima facie case, but the Court must also be satisfied that balance of convenience and irreparable injury are clearly made out. 8. In the case in hand, learned trial Court rightly examined the conduct of the parties in detail and found that the appellant did not act with bona fide intentions. Exercising judicial discretion, the Court declined relief in favour of the appellant, as equitable remedies require fair and honest conduct. 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion and guided by the settled principles of law, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tehri Garhwal. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 06.11.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45b a3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AA DAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.03.12 13:26:12 +05'30' 2025:UHC:9777