1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3169/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3169/2010 Mohammed Rafiq & Another Vs. Girdhari Singh & Another. Date of Judgment: 13.12.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, for the appellants. BY THE COURT: Learned counsel for the appellants has moved an application for taking Annexures 1, 2, 4 and 5 on record. Application is allowed. Documents annexed with the application are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 3. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is directed against order dated 06.03.2010 passed by trial court whereby application for temporary injunction filed by Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 has been allowed in part and defendants/appellants have been restrained from 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3169/2010 alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. 4. From the order impugned it is clear that Defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute. plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract alongwith an application for temporary injunction pleading that plaintiff is ready to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration, but Defendant No. 1 is not executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, rather Defendant No. 1 has executed a sale deed in favour of Defendants No. 2 and 3, therefore, Defendants may be restrained from alienating the property in dispute. 5. Prayer of the plaintiff in the plaint is that sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendants No. 2 and 3 be declared as void and ineffective against the plaintiff. 6. Learned trial court after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, decided all the three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiff, but allowed the application of 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3169/2010 temporary injunction in part only and restrained the defendants from alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that appellants are bonafide purchaser of the property in dispute and trial court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order. They have every right to sell and dispose off the property in dispute, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in the light of reasons recorded by trial court for granting limited injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 9. Trial court has considered the various aspects of the matter and has recorded a finding that there is prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiff. In my considered view the order passed by trial court is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. Plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement/contract and in case such limited injunction for not alienating 4 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3169/2010 the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit is not granted, then the very purpose of filing the suit itself will fail. 10. In these circumstances, I am of the view that order passed by learned trial court is absolutely just and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. I do not find any merit in this misc. appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj, Item No.12.