[2025:RJ-JP:26697] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 800/2018 Banwarilal S/o Shri Todaram, R/o Dhani Ramsagar, Tan Amai, Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur Raj ----Appellant/Plaintiff Versus 1. Madanlal S/o Shri Deendayal, R/o Village Amai, Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur Raj 2. Deendayal S/o Shri Mahadev Prasad, R/o Village Amai, Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur Raj 3. The Sub Registrar, Kotputli District Jaipur Raj 4. State Of Rajasthan Through Land Holder Tehsildar, Kotputli District Jaipur Raj 5. State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Jaipur, District Jaipur Raj ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Pooja Dixit for Mr. G.S. Gill, learned AAG appearing for respondents No. 3 to 5 Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj for respondent No.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment 15/07/2025 1. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(R) CPC with a challenge to the order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur (for short ‘the court below’) in Application No.15/2017 (Banwarilal vs. Madan Lal & Ors.), whereby the application for temporary [2025:RJ-JP:26697] (2 of 3) [CMA-800/2018] injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC was dismissed. 2. The present civil misc. appeal was filed on 30.01.2018. The suit and the temporary injunction application was filed in the year 2017 but no ad-interim order or interim relief was allowed in favour of the appellant /plaintiff either by the trial Court or by the High Court till date. After such a lapse of eight years allowing any interim relief without agitating any new fact or ground may not be appropriate. 3. The appellant/ plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction before the court below along-with the suit for specific performance and contract and permanent injunction with the averments that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 273/0.078, 274/0.83 and 278/1.09 is situated at Amai Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur. Out of the aforesaid land, share of the respondent/defendant No.2- Deendayal is 2.045 hectare. It was further averred that the respondent/defendant No.1- Madanlal stating about the illness of respondent / defendant No.2- Deendayal who is father of respondent/ defendant No.2 executed an agreement with the appellant/ plaintiff and received the money. It is the basic law that an agreement to sale can only be executed by the person in whose name the land is recorded in the revenue record or by a person authorized by him to do so through a [2025:RJ-JP:26697] (3 of 3) [CMA-800/2018] legally executed power of attorney. In the present case, on perusal of the record, the Court finds that no any such agreement was executed by the actual land owner of the suit property i.e. Deendayal (respondent/ defendant No.2). The suit for specific performance of a contract can be instituted against a person who has executed a contract/ agreement of a property which is under his lawful ownership 4. On perusal of the record and the findings given by the court below, this Court finds no ground to interfere with in the impugned order passed by the court below. 5. The misc. appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff is having no merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 6. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, the stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 7. Record of the case, if any, be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar/57