GOVIND PRASAD Vs. LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/plaintiff has filed this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 26/9/2020 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Civil Suit No.1-A/2019, whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that appellant/plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the respondents/defendants seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC. After hearing both the parties, trial Court has rejected the application by passing impugned order. Hence appellant has filed this miscellaneous appeal before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that trial Court has erred in not considering that appellant has executed the power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 and on that basis they have purchased the suit property but after obtaining the power of attorney, respondent No.1 has misused it and he has alienated the suit property to his family members-respondents No.2 to 5. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is also in favour of the appellant. The impugned order passed by the court below is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. Hence he has prayed that impugned order be set aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff be allowed and temporary injunction be issued against the respondents.