VISHNU PRASAD Vs. HETIRAJ SHARMA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for partition and for cancellation of "Patta" in which there were 37 defendants,and the suit property was in possession of defendants No.1to4, an application for temporary injunction was filed by the appellant/plaintiff Vishnu Prasad in the trial court and the trial court ordered that the said defendants will not alienate or transfer the suit property in any manner to any third party but defendants No.1 to 4 will be entitled to raise the construction on the suit property, subject to the approved map provided that they file an affidavit in the trial court to the effect that at the time of final decree the said defendants will not be entitled to claim any benefit on the basis of expenditure incurred by them in the said construction.

(2.) It has been argued in this appeal by learned counsel for the appellant Vishnu Prasad that the trial court had given a finding that prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff but still the question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss were decided in favour of the defendants and so only limited temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff which should be enlarged as per him.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order and I have also perused the papers submitted by the parties in this case. I have heard arguments of both the parties. It has been submitted by the respondents that previously also a suit for partition was filed by Vishnu Prasad and that suit No.33/2010 (366/2010) was dismissed by ADJ No.2, Ajmer on 02.05.2012, similarly, Civil Suit No.263/1993 (old No.110/1977) filed by Vishnu Prasad for compensation of the suit property was also dismissed by Civil Judge (JD) Pushkar on 23.08.1999. The judgment dated 23.8.1999 was upheld by ADJ No.4 Fast Track, Ajmer on 08.03.2010 in Civil Appeal No.370/2009. All these facts were concealed by the appellant in the trial court for no justifiable excuse.