BHURI DEVI Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS -defendants have laid this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 CPC against the order dated 28th May, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara, whereby learned Court below, while deciding application of the respondent -plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract, has restrained the appellant from further alienating the suit property and maintaining status -quo as it is exists today for preserving the property.

(2.) THE learned Court below after considering the rival submissions has recorded an affirmative finding that respondent -plaintiff has proved, prima facie, case in his favour and further he has been able to prove two other necessary ingredients, namely, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction. With this conclusion, the learned Court below has granted indulgence to the respondent -plaintiff and passed the impugned order.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Farzand Ali, submits that the learned Court below has examined the matter threadbare and thereafter recorded an affirmative finding about prima facie case as well as existence of two other ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, which is a just finding warranting no interference in the limited scope of judicial review in this appeal. Mr. Farzand Ali further submits that existence of agreement to sale in favour of appellants -defendants anterior to the respondent -plaintiff can be ascertained after taking into account evidence of the rival parties and that is why the learned Court below, while considering it to be a contentious issue, has recorded a finding about prima facie case, which requires no interference. Lastly, Mr. Farzand Ali submits that scope of judicial review in an appeal against the order for temporary injunction is very much limited and appellate Court is not obliged to reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the learned Court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion.