PATEL AMRATBHAI JOITARAM JETHABHAI Vs. PARMAR JAYESHKUMAR DHIRAJBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal from Order challenging the legality and validity of order dtd. 18/11/2021 passed by the learned 4th Sr. Civil Judge in Special Civil Suit No.222 of 2018 wherein the learned Judge by impugned order, has directed the parties not to alienate and transfer the suit property any further.

(2.) I have heard learned advocate Mr. Amrish K. Pandya for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Nirad D. Buch for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Kalpesh N. Shastri for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5. Respondent No.1 is original plaintiff in whose favour agreement to sale is executed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 during interregnum period.

(3.) Perusing the order of the trial Court I failed to understand from the entire order that three main ingredients while granting the application for stay i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are to be dealt with while granting an injunction. As such perusing the impugned order, though the Court has framed the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, cogent and convincing reasons, which are to be assigned, are missing. As such, I think it is an appropriate case, wherein the trial Court shall hear the application for injunction afresh after giving opportunity to all the parties and decides the application for injunction upon its own merits.