MANGI LAL Vs. PRAHLAD & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Order XLI Rule 1(r) of CPC, challenging the order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dausa Camp, Lalsot (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Misc. Case No. 15/2012, whereby the trial court has partly allowed the application of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. It appears that the appellant -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction, partition and declaration in respect of the lands in question before the trial court. The appellant had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit lands which has been partly allowed by the trial court to the extent of directing both the parties to maintain status -quo as regards the sell, transfer or creating charge over the suit properties and also as regards the record. However, the trial court further directed that, the impugned order shall not affect the proceedings pending before the Revenue Court which may be proceeded in accordance with law.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, for the appellant that the appellant is aggrieved by the later part of the impugned order inasmuch as such a direction would lead to further multiplicity of the proceedings. However, the Court does not find any substance in the said submission. The trial court has passed the detailed order considering the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly directed while passing the order of status -quo that the said order shall not affect the proceedings before the Revenue Court which may be proceeded in accordance with law. The order passed by the trial court 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.