(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2010 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, Camp Merta (hereinafter referred to as the trial court') has rejected the application of the plaintiff -appellant for granting temporary injunction against the respondents. The appellant had filed a suit for partition in the trial Court with the allegation that the properties mentioned in the Schedule A, B & C belonged to grand -father of the appellant and respondents and all are co -sharers in the said properties. It was alleged that the appellant had asked for partition of residential, agricultural and immovable properties, but the defendant respondents had refused to partition the said properties and are intending to sell it. Therefore, suit for partition of the properties mentioned in schedule A, B & C was filed.
(2.) ALONG with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was also preferred and temporary injunction was sought against the defendant -respondents with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from alienating the properties mentioned in Schedule A & B and also be restrained from interfering in possession and use of such properties. The defendant -respondents filed a detailed reply to the application for temporary injunction and claimed that the property sought to be partitioned by the appellant had already been partitioned between the father of the appellant and father of respondents. It was also urged that some of the agricultural land, for which partition sought, was purchased by the respondents through registered sale deed from the father of the appellant and as such they are absolute owners of the said property. It was also contended that the father of the appellant had preferred a revenue suit for partition of the agricultural lands before the revenue Court in which the application for interim orders had already been dismissed.
(3.) BEING aggrieved with the order dated 25.11.2010, the appellant has preferred this appeal.