1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2104/2007. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Another. VERSUS Alok Kumar Gupta. 15.04.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Virendra Lodha, for the appellants. Mr.J.P.Goyal, for the respondent. ***** This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.03.2007 passed on the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking the grant of temporary injunction. The learned trial court allowed the said application and has directed the defendant-appellant for maintaining the status quo with regard to the property in dispute and not to proceed with the sale etc. and not to execute any document in respect thereof. The facts are not disputed. The property in dispute was put to auction on 06.03.1990 and the plaintiff-respondent was the highest bidder for the same and the bid in his favour was accepted vide letter dated 29.03.1990 according to which the plaintiff-respondent was informed that his bid for Rs.11,05,000/- was accept and he was required to deposit 25% of the said amount within the stipulated period and the balance amount in 19 installments. In compliance of the aforesaid letter dated 29.03.1990 as per the case of the plaintiff- 2 respondent, he deposited 1/4th amount on 12.04.1990 but thereafter a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff failed to deposit the balance amount which was liable to be deposited in 19 installments. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant-appellant failed to handover the possession of the portion of the property which was under lock with the Bank of Baroda and since the defendant-appellant failed to deliver the possession, the plaintiff was well within his rights not to make the payment of the balance amount. It is the case of the plaintiff that the possession of the property which was in the custody of the Bank of Baroda was released by the said Bank in March, 2006. In the meanwhile, the defendant sent a letter canceling the auction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and forfeiting the 1/4th amount deposited by the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff filed this suit for several reliefs interalia for injunction and also moved an application for the grant of temporary injunction along with the said suit.The defendant-appellant filed a reply and also submitted that before the suit was filed the property in dispute had been put to re- auction and the same had been purchased by M/s.Manish Chemical Pvt. Ltd. for an amount of Rs.1,01,51,000/- on 25.09.2006 i.e. before the institution of the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant case the learned trial court has committed a serious error in passing the order of status quo inasmuch as the property had already been sold on 25.09.2006 in 3 pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.09.2006, as has been mentioned in the plaint itself. Thus, it is submitted that the affected party being M/s.Manish Chemical Pvt. Ltd. is not before the court, the court ought not to have passed any order of injunction without affording any opportunity to the affected party. Learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the plaintiff was not in the know about the sale. So far as the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is concerned, in the plaint itself in para No.21 the plaintiff has admitted and stated the fact with regard to the publication of notice of auction of the land in dispute right from 28.08.2006. In that view of the matter since the auction had already taken place, as has been mentioned at page 4 of the certified copy of the judgment of the learned trial court, the learned trial court has committed a serious error in passing an order of maintaining status quo more particularly when the affected party was not before the court i.e. the auction purchaser whose rights had come into being before the filing of the suit by the plaintiff- respondent. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept this appeal and make the interim order passed by this court dated 10.07.2007 4 absolute. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. The learned trial court shall take steps to dispose of the suit expeditiously with cooperation of the learned counsel for the parties. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.