SHANTI LAL PRAJAPAT Vs. SURESH KUMAR PRAJAPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Appeal no. 47/2013 whereby the appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the defendants-respondents herein and set aside the order dated 3.5.2013 by which the trial court allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and granted temporary injunction in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. Learned District Judge while allowing the appeal further directed that if the defendants-respondents intend to transfer the suit property or any part thereof, they shall furnish prior information of such transfer in the court and shall also incorporate the fact of pendency of litigation in the document of transfer.Being aggrieved of the appellate order, the plaintiff-petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the appeal and quashing the interim injunction order passed by the trial court. He further submits that the trial court had passed a well reasoned and proper order under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property or any part thereof and maintaining status quo and thus interference by the appellate court was uncalled for. He further submits that the defendants in utter disregard of the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the appellate court, has transferred the suit property without furnishing prior information in the court and in haste sold the disputed property within four days of the order passed by the appellate court and as such, even guilty of contempt of court and the writ petition is allowable on the this sole ground alone. He further submits that the suit involves triable issues and the trial court is perfectly justified in allowing the application of the plaintiff. He placed reliance on Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar, 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 426, Narottam v. Geeta Devi and Ors, 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 240 and Bhagwati Singh v. Raja Laxman Singh 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 246.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellate court acted well within its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and quashing the interim injunction order passed by the trial court. He further submits that the respondents are not guilty of any violation of the directions issued by the appellate court and had transferred the property incorporating the facts of pendency of the litigation in the transfer deed (sale deed) dated 24.2.2014. He further submits that the suit of the plaintiff/ petitioner is of mere injunction and the plaintiff petitioner has himself subsequently filed a comprehensive suit for partition with regard to the suit property and all the questions between them could well be settled in this suit for partition and hence no interference is called for under the limited jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment of Apex Court of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. State of Maharastra and ors 2014(1) CCC 111 (S.C); K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors.v. State of Karnataka and Ors.2014 (1) CCC 855 (S.C.); Bruce v. Silva Raj and Others (1987) (Supp.) SCC 161 and the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Pura v. Lalki and Another 1999 (2) Raj.RLW 1358; Smt. Raj Dulari v. Ram Niwas S/o Shri Hari Narain and Raghuveer Chaturvedi and J.D.A. 2013 (1) WLC 292 and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Virendra Kumar v. Additional District Judge, Kannauj and Ors.2014 (2) CCC 166 (Allahabad).