Allahabad High Court
ZAHID AHMEDversusGYANWATI
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the injunction and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Zahid Ahmed, challenged an injunction restraining him from creating third‑party rights over a property that was the subject of a sale deed executed on 23‑03‑2024. The sale consideration was Rs.6 lakh, but a cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured and he alleges he has already paid Rs.9 lakh via RTGS, seeking a return of Rs.3 lakh. The lower courts had earlier granted an injunction pending a suit for cancellation of the sale deed filed by the respondent, Gyanwati. The petitioner argued that the injunction should be set aside because there was no prima facie case, no balance of convenience, and no irreparable loss, especially since the full consideration had been paid. The High Court held that the question of the payments' relation to the sale price is a matter for trial and that the injunction was correctly issued to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, leaving the injunction in force pending the outcome of the suit.
Issues considered
- Whether the injunction restraining the petitioner from creating third‑party rights should be set aside on the ground of lack of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
- Whether the payment of Rs.6 lakh against a total sale consideration of Rs.9 lakh affects the validity of the injunction.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's injunction pending trial of the cancellation suit.
Subjects
- property sale
- injunction
- dishonoured cheque
- balance of convenience
- prima facie case
- Article 227
- civil procedure
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6849 of 2026
Zahid Ahmed
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Gyanwati
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madhusudan Dikshit
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned counsel for the defendant-
petitioner.
2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices
are not being issued to the plaintiff-respondents.
3. The case of the defendant-petitioner is that with respect to the purchase of
a property, a registered sale deed stood executed by the plaintiff-petitioner in
favour of the defendant-respondent on 23.03.2024. The total sale
consideration was Rs.6 lacs. However, as per the averments contained in the
plaint, a cheque bearing no.0916068 came to be drawn by the defendant-
petitioner in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, reference whereof has been
made in registered sale deed, the same came to be dishonoured. As per the
recital contained in para-23 of the plaint, the defendant-petitioner is alleged
to have made two payments, one on 08.04.2024 and second on 17.04.2024
of an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- each. However, when the defendant-petitioner
approached for return of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was paid in excess. Now, the
Original Suit no.5654 of 2024, Smt. Gyanwati vs. Jahid Ahmad came to be
instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Devision), Havali,
Saharanpur for cancellation of the sale deed. Thereafter by virtue of the
order dated 19.08.2025, an injunction order came to be passed restraining the
defendant petitioner for creating third-party rights. Against which Misc.
Appeal came to be preferred which has been rejected by the Court of Addl.
Sessions Judge, Court no.3, Saharanpur on 10.03.2026, in Misc. Civil
Appeal No. 178 of 2026.
4. Questioning both the orders, the present petition has been preferred.
A227 No. 6849 of 2026
2
5. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has sought to argue that the
order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that already the
defendant petitioner had paid Rs.6 lacs against the total sale consideration of
Rs.9 lacs. Thus the injunction order could not have been passed, as now, the
plaintiff-respondent has become dishonest. While inviting attention towards
the bank statement, it is contended that Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- has
already been transferred by the defendant-petitioner in the account of the
plaintiff-respondent and now on account of the injunction order, the
defendant petitioner cannot even mortgage the property in any manner
whatsoever. However, he submits that there has been no consideration of
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the
record carefully.
7. Apparently, with respect to execution of the sale deed, the total
consideration was Rs.6 lacs. The cheque so referred to the sale deed stood
dishonoured and the defendant-petitioner claims to have withdrawn the
amount of Rs.9,00,000/- through RTGS and then Rs.3 lacs have been sought
to be demanded in return back, now the suit for cancellation has been filed.
The question whether the said Rs.4,50,000/- + Rs.4,50,000/- was relatable to
the amount of the sale consideration, which is Rs.6,00,000/- is a question of
trial wherein evidences are to be seen. The trial court as well as the appellate
court has only restraint the defendant-petitioner in creating third party right.
8. In the opinion of the Court, in order to avoid multiplicity and
complications, the injunction orders came to be passed. The prima facie
case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss has not been
considered. Whatever arguments which the defendant-petitioner is seeking
to raise, they are relatable to the evidence in that regard.
9. Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere. The petition stands
disposed of leaving it open for the defendant-petitioner to take all legal and
factual grounds while contesting the suit. This Court has no reason to
disbelieve that the suit shall be decided with most expedition.
May 18, 2026
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…