// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2395/2007 Natwar Lal S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Versus Usha Devi D/o late Smt. Manbhar Devi and Others Date of Order ::: 08.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Kamlesh Pareek, Counsel for appellant Shri U.P. Gaur, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale in the trial court along-with an application for temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 3rd May, 2007. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred this miscellaneous appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for both the parties have argued the case at length and, after considering their submissions as well as the reasons assigned by the learned trial court and also the copy of the agreement placed on the record with the documents, I am of the view that // 2 // the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application for temporary injunction when the suit for specific performance is pending before it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it fit and proper to restrain the defendant-respondents from alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. Consequently the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set- aside and it is directed that the defendant- respondents will not alienate the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the above, there is no need to pass any separate order for vacation of the interim stay order and the same also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//