SHIVCHAND Vs. BIRBAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -plaintiff under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC, being partly aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in T.I. Application No. 1/2012, to the extent that the trial court has not granted the relief of temporary injunction for restraining the respondents -defendants from making any changes in the revenue record. In the instant case, it appears that the appellant -plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondents -defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 04.12.2010 against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.12.2011 executed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in respect of the suit lands. The appellant -plaintiff had also filed the application being No. 1/2012 seeking temporary injunction for restraining the respondents from selling or transferring the suit lands, and also from making any changes in the revenue record. The trial court vide the impugned order has partly allowed the said application by restraining the respondents from selling, transferring the 2/6th part of the disputed lands to any third party and rejected the other prayers.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Pradeep Choudhary for the appellant that the trial court having found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, should have granted the application for temporary injunction in toto, and should have restrained the respondents from making any changes in the revenue record, in order to avoid further multiplicity of the proceedings. The Court does not find any substance in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The trial court after considering the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and other factors has passed the impugned order restraining the respondents -defendants from transferring or selling 2/6th part of the disputed lands, which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The impugned order being discretionary in nature, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine.