HJGH ^OURTOF CHHATTISOARHL BJLASPUR Single Bench: Appellants -^ ResDondents -'•"•••f^. -<<• Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.No.75of2008 1. BharatlalGupta, aged 57 years, son of Ramjhui Gupta, 2. Arjunlal Gupta, Son of Late Shri RamjhulGupta, 3. Sushil Gupta, son Late Shri Ramjhul Gupta, All are residentsofVillage Pipartarai, Tahsil and district Bilaspur (CG) (Defendants 1,2,3) Versus 1. Mahesh Kumar Singh, aged 37 years, Son of Shri Chuhnilal Singh, resident Qf Lajpatrai Nagar, Marwani Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) 2. Manish Gupta.son of Shri Narayan Prasad Gupta, resident of Vikash Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bitaspur (CG) (Plaintiffs) 3. Ashok Gupta, Son of Late Shri Ramjhul Gupta, resident of Village Pipartarai, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (CG) 4. Kishor Gupta, Son of Late Shri Ramjhul Gupta, 5. Smt Geeta Devi, wife of Late Shri Ramjhul Gupta, 6. Rajiv Gupta, Son of Late Shri Ramjhul Gupta, respondents 4 to 6 are residents of near Hatri Chowk, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) 7. Shiv Kumar Gupta, son of Late Shri Ramjhul Gupta, 8. Raj Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Shri Ramjhul Gupta, Respondents 7 and 8 are residents of Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) _ : 9. State of Chhattisgarh through the Djstrict Collector, Bilaspur (CG) (Defendahts) ^ ;^ .^- h^: Miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 (11 (il readwith Order43 RuIeKrtoftheCPC.1908. Present: Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the appellant/piaintiff. Shri P.R. Patankar, PLforthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 06.08.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2008 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in civil suit No.14-A/2008, whereby the appeltants/defendants were restrained from aiienating'the suit property or creating any third party interest therein till disposal of suit. (3) Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants argued in this appeal that under the amended sub- rule (2) of rule 2 of Order 39 of C.P.C., a temporary injunction could not be granted since no perpetuai injunction was prayed. tt was also urged that the appellants/defendants had, in the written statement, denied that the agreement dated 24.03.2005 bears their signature. ^ (4) Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appeliant, 1 have perused para 11 ofthe impugned order. Considering the fact that a serious question is to be tried during the trial of the suit relating 'toiEltle over the suit property, the learned District Judge, has, keeping in mind the balance of eonvenience and the irreparable injury, granted temporarily a mere injunction restraining the appellants/defendants only from alienating or creating third party interests in the suit property till disposal of the appeai. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the considered opinion that the impugnedorder passed by the learned District Judge does not call for interferehce. The contention that unless perpetual injunction is prayed for, atemporary injunction couid not be granted can also not be accepted. Co^^-ri, -^ J-1!nya ^- (5) tn this view ofthe matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that this appeal has no merit, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. (6) !n view of the above, I.A. No.1 for grant of stay stands disposed of. The learned District Judge shall endeavourtoexpeditiouslydecide civil suit No.14-A/2008 preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. | DiUp Raosalieb Deshmukh Judge •'" f^sc.