SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. JABRUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the order dt. 16.09.2011 passed by the trial Court, whereby, the application filed by the appellant was partly accepted and the respondents were restrained from alienating the suit property. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order impugned passed by the trial Court does not take into consideration the several arguments raised by the appellant and in fact the prayer was for maintaining the status quo as well, however, the same has not at all been considered and the order impugned has been passed in a very cursory manner.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the order impugned. It was argued that the plaintiff -appellant has no prima facie case and even the impugned order was essentially passed only with a view to see that further complications do not arise, however, as the respondent is a bona fide purchaser, he is entitled to use the said land.

(3.) THE order impugned proceeds on the assumption that the appellant -plaintiff was merely seeking an injunction against alienation of the property and thereafter the order flows in the said direction without any discussion and ultimately an order granting injunction against transfer has been passed. Alongwith the appeal, the counsel has filed an affidavit of the counsel, who represented the appellant before the trial Court, inter alia, stating that he had not given any concession and had argued the matter on all aspects including prayer for seeking status quo. The said affidavit cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of decision of this appeal. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. reported at : AIR 1982 SC 1249 no amount of evidence or affidavit can be looked into for the purpose of disputing as to what transpired before the Court and only remedy is to go before the same Court and raise the issue in this regard.