(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Order XL1II Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") against the order dated 28-3-2002 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 36-A/99 (New No. 47-A/2002) by Fifth Additional District Judge, Ujjain, whereby it rejected plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the son of the deceased daughter of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang has filed a suit for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction against the Respondents. It is also not in dispute before me that Respondent No. 1 defendant is the son of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang and the appellant/plaintiff is the son of the sister of Respondent No. 1. It is also not in dispute before me that the suit property has not been partitioned earlier between the legal heirs of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang. It is also not in dispute that late Shri Laxmanrao Telang has not executed any Will in favour of any party. It is also not in dispute before me that the entire suit property is in possession of defendant No. 1 who is the son of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed an application seeking temporary injunction against defendant No. 1 and other co-defendants that they be directed not to dispose of or alienate the suit property and be directed to maintain status-quo. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant/ plaintiff has failed to prove his prima-facie case in the suit and he is also not in possession over the suit property. Therefore, injunction cannot be granted in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff, against which the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this miscellaneous appeal.
(3.) I have heard Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Shri O.K. Saxena, for appellant; Shri R.S. Chandrawade, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1: and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 6.