RAHUL MAHESHWARI Vs. GYARSA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC challenging the order dated 28.4.15 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in T.I. Application No. 3/15, whereby the said application has been dismissed by the trial court.

(2.) In the instant case it appears that the appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 2.6.04 allegedly executed by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. According to the appellant-plaintiff the defendant No.5 however on the strength of the power of attorney executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.5, sold out the suit property to the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 24.12.04 by executing the registered sale-deed. The appellant-plaintiff had therefore filed the T.I. Application seeking temporary injunction against the respondents-defendants, which was dismissed by the trial court vide the order dated 25.7.2007, against which the appellant had filed the SBCMA No. 2904/07 before this court. The said CMA was dismissed by this court vide the judgment and order dated 16.3.10, after recording the statement of the counsel appearing for the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 that in case any sale is made or transfer or assignment is made during the pendency of the suit the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 would bring the same to the notice of the learned trial court for the purpose of Order 22, Rule 10 of CPC. According to the appellant-plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, the said defendants have further sold out the suit property to the defendant No. 2 Babulal Sharma on 6.1.14 by executing the sale-deed and therefore the second T.I. Application was moved, which has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Dr. P.C. Jain for the appellant that the respondent No.3 has sold out he suit premises to the defendant No.2 pending the suit and if such sale or transfer is permitted pending the suit, that would lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and frustrate the purpose of filing the suit. In this regard it is required to be noted that the earlier T.I. Application filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court and the said order was confirmed by this court. The said order passed by this court in SBCMA No. 2904/07 has remained unchallenged at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff. Hence there being no interim injunction granted in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, the defendant No.3 appears to have sold out the suit property to the defendant No.2 and informed the court accordingly. Under the circumstances the court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.