GAUTAM LAL Vs. BHADRABAHU KOTADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT plaintiff by the instant appeal has called in question the impugned order dated 23rd of March 2013, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, whereby the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction was rejected.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, facts of the case are that the appellant laid a suit for specific performance of contract before the learned trial Court against the respondent with the averment that there was an agreement to sale between the rival parties for the disputed plot. Alongwith the suit for specific performance of contract, the appellant also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking interim relief of restraining the respondent from alienating the plot and to maintain status quo regarding plot in dispute. Learned trial Court, after hearing the rival parties, by the impugned order declined the relief of temporary injunction.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the impugned order has submitted that the learned Court below has examined the matter threadbare and thereafter declined the relief of temporary injunction, which calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Shambhoo Singh would urge that powers of the appellate Court in the matter of temporary injunction are to be exercised sparingly because granting or refusing injunction is within the sole discretion of the trial Court.