HASAN & ORS. Vs. RAJEEV & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to amend the cause -title by correcting the name of the respondent No. 1 as Rajeev S/o Omprakash in place of Omprakash S/o Manfool in conformity with the cause -title shown in the impugned order. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants -plaintiffs under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC challenging the order dated 25th May, 2013 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in the application for temporary injunction NO. 33/13, whereby the said application has been dismissed by the trial court.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the appellants -plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking cancellation of the registered sale -deed dated 4.6.90 and for permanent injunction in respect of the land in question. The appellants had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit land under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

(3.) THE court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is pertinent to note that the registered sale deed dated 4.6.90 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the respondent No. 1 was sought to be challenged and cancelled in the suit filed in the year 2013 i.e. Almost 23 years after the execution of the said sale deed. The trial court hence rightly observed that the appellants -plaintiffs had failed to point out any prima facie case in their favour and that the balance of convenience was also not in the favour of the appellants. Their being no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, this court does not find any substance in the present appeal. In that view of the matter, this appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine.