HANUMAN SAHAI Vs. CHOUTHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No. 13, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in civil misc. application no. 322/2012 in civil suit no. 170/2011, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent no. 1 -plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and has restrained the appellant -defendant & respondent no. 2 from alienating or transferring the suit property. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent no. 1 -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking cancellation of the sale -deed dated 18.11.2006 executed by the respondent no. 2 in favour of the appellant -defendant. It has been alleged inter -alia that the respondent no. 2 had executed the sale -deed on the basis of a forged power of attorney in respect of the suit property. The respondent no. 1 had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, which has been allowed by the trial court vide the impugned order.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellant -defendant that in view of the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, there was no necessity for the trial court to grant any injunction. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal & ors. Vs. Ramkumar & anr. -2010 WLC (Raj.) UC 223 and also the decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Upendranath Singh Vs. Smruti Ranjan Mohanty & ors. - : 2003 (2) CCC 432 (Orissa), in support of his contentions.