RAJUDAS Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal to challenge order dated 10.08.2018, passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur. By the order impugned, learned trial Court rejected application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that appellant and respondent are related to each other, inasmuch as, appellant is son-in-law of the respondent. It so happened that in the year 2006, vide registered sale-deed dated 24.03.2006, respondent purchased a property from one Sumitra Devi and as per version of the appellant, he was also having 1/3rd share in the property because he paid 1/3rd of the consideration amount. It is further pleaded that subsequently respondent executed an agreement to sale in favour of appellant for 1/3rd share from that property but later on refused to carry out his part of the contract. It is also pleaded in the plaint that appellant is in possession of part of the property and there is every likelihood that he may be dispossessed by the respondent. With these averments, prayer was made for grant of aforementioned relief. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is also filed, wherein temporary injunction is prayed by the appellant so as to restrain respondent from disturbing his possession on 1/3 rd property. It is also prayed by the appellant that respondent be restrained from creating any hindrance in his endeavour to seek electricity connection for the premises in his possession. The application is contested by the respondent.

(3.) Learned trial Court heard arguments and proceeded to examine requisite three ingredients for grant of temporary injunction.