Receipt in context of receiving money could not be treated to be concluded agreement: Punjab & Haryana HC

feature-top

Read Order: Pardeep Kumar v. Umesh Kumar and another 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh,December 9, 2021: While considering a Petition wherein petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order declining the prayer for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that prima facie, at this stage, the receipt in question could not be treated to be an agreement to sell entered into between the parties and the same did not confer any right upon the plaintiff.

In this case, a suit for mandatory injunction had been filed along with prayer for permanent injunction directing the defendant to execute agreement to sell regarding suit property on the basis of a receipt dated January 22,2021 by which the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.16,650/- per square yard.

The Bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh mentioned that both the Courts below had taken note of the fact that it was not a case of concluded agreement as terms and conditions were never settled therein. The agreement to sell had not been executed, rather a receipt was alleged to have been executed on January 22,2021.

“Prima facie, at this stage, the receipt in question cannot be treated to be an agreement to sell entered into between the parties and the same does not confer any right upon the plaintiff”, said the Bench.

According to the High Court, the alleged receipt in the context of receiving the money could not be co-related with that of agreement to sell at this stage and such a document could not be treated to be a concluded agreement.

Thus, holding that no ground was made out to entertain the present petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Add a Comment