FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.

1. Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, whereby, the Court below through the impugned findings refused to grant ex parte stay order and consequently, issued notice to the defendants.

2. Heard counsel of both the sides and perused the records.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondents entered into an agreement to sell dated 29.01.2021 in respect of property duly described and depicted in the agreement (Annexure P-1). Part of the total consideration was received the same very day through receipt (Annexure P-3). The terms and conditions of this agreement were duly incorporated therein. Under this agreement, the second party was handed over the possession to facilitate and enabling them to carve out plots, laying roads and all acts commensurate therewith. It was further agreed that within a period of one year of this agreement, sale deed/deeds would be got executed. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties compelling the petitioner-Parveen Kumar to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents et cetera from transferring the land subject matter of the agreement or creating any rights thereon or alienating it in any manner, whatsoever. In the said suit, a stay application was moved upon which the impugned findings were made.

4. During the course of hearing arguments, it is not displaced that an agreement was there in writing, as a consequence of which, total sale consideration was for a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- for land measuring almost 04 bighas and 16 biswas, out of which, as is incorporated in the agreement, Rs.1 Crore was received as earnest money by the second party.

5. The present petitioner who happened to be second party in the agreement was within his right to enter into an agreement to sell or develop the property in the manner so necessitated and the possession of the property for development purposes of a colony were handed over allowing the second party to lay down roads, carve out plots and carry on such activities. The photographs annexed by the plaintiff are illustrative of laying of roads, installation of electric poles and so on and so forth and therefore, is deemed to be in legal and permissible possession of the land, subject matter of this agreement. The learned lower Court has run into an error and purely on the reasons that it is not inclined to grant ex parte stay without listening to the other party has refused it so, rather is suggestive that it is not exercise of judicial discretion which was necessitated in such an eventuality but a pure emotional approach by the Court. The claim of the petitioner’s side as to having paid the amount and having been given possession to develop the property are strong indicators that after securing money upon the agreement, he was authorized to do so and carry on such activities and, therefore, if the opposite side interferes in his carrying on of such activities, certainly would result in irreparable loss and injury. More so, the Apex Court in a judgment titled as ‘Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot versus Baldev Dass’ Civil Appeal No.6792 of 2004 and 'Dalpat Kumar versus Prahlad Singh' Civil Appeal Nos. 5054 and 5055 of 1991 have clearly held that where irreparable loss is made out, the Court should not hesitate to grant injunction.

6. In light of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are restrained to interfere in the property subject matter of this agreement except in due course of law, the present petition stands allowed in those terms.