(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the order dtd. 27/5/2022 whereby the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC preferred by the appellants was partly allowed. So far as the relief qua the residential plot and house is concerned, learned trial Court decided in favour of the appellants restraining the respondents from alienating the property and further not to raise any construction or make any material alteration in the same but qua the agricultural land in dispute, the same was rejected. Against the said rejection, the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it was clear on record that the agricultural land in dispute was an ancestral property and not a self-acquired property of Bhanwar Puri. Therefore, till the issue regarding the property being ancestral or self-acquired is decided by the Revenue Court wherein a suit was already pending for adjudication, the learned trial Court ought to have protected the property from further being alienated. He submitted that his only prayer before this Court is that respondents may be restrained from alienating the property further.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present appellants, while preferring the proceedings before the Revenue Court, also preferred an application for temporary injunction wherein also one of the reliefs was that the respondents may be restrained from alienating the property. The said application was rejected by the Revenue Courts and the writ petition against the said orders being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14533/2019 was also rejected by this Court vide order dtd. 6/11/2020. The special appeal preferred against the said order dtd. 6/11/2020 being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.04/2021 was also dismissed vide order dtd. 10/1/2022. Meaning thereby, the relief as prayed for in the present appeal has already been rejected earlier and the present appeal for the same relief cannot be entertained.