RAJESH CHOUDHARY Vs. GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC challenging the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by the Addl.District Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court'), whereby the trial court has partly allowed the temporary injunction application being No.15 of 2007 filed by the appellants, by restraining the respondent No.4 (original defendant No.4) from alienating the suit property to the third party during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Laxmi Kant for the appellants that the appellants-plaintiffs have filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.4 and also for specific performance of the agreement dated 31.3.2003 executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the appellants. According to him, the trial court though believed prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs, restrained the respondent No.4 only from alienating the suit property and did not grant injunction against the other respondents. Relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs Baldev Dass 2005(1) Apex Court Judgements457 (S.C.), the learned counsel has submitted that the application for temporary injunction cannot be declined on the basis that alienation will be subject to law of lis pendens. According to him,order passed by the trial court being erroneous, all the respondents should be restrained from alienating the suit property. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial court had erroneously held that the respondent no.4 was in possession of the suit property.