HIGH COURT OF CHHA'niSGAaSH AT BIIASPUR APPELLANTS fDefendants) RESPONDBNTS Plaintiff DBFBNDANT No.85of2009 Smt. Rambai, W/o late Shri Kanwarlal Singh, aged 47 yeors 2. Kumari Sarita S/o late Shri Kanwarlal Singh, aged 30 years 3. Vanm S/o late Shri Kanwarlal Singh, aged 28 years 4. Kushal S/o late Shri Kanwarlal Singh, aged 26 years 5. Sheela, S/o late Shri Kanwarlal Singh, aged 36 years AU are resident of Kodhikhana Road, Basantpur, Ward no. 40, Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus 1. Pawan Meshram, S/o Late Shn Kewaldas Meshram, aged 34 years, R/o Kodhikhana Road, Basantpur, Ward No. 40, Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. State of CUhattisgarh, through Collector, Rajnandgaon (CG) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRBSENT:- Shri Malay Shrivastava, Adv. for fhe appellants. Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Adv. wifh Shri Ralcesh Thakur, Adv. for fhe respondent No. 1. Shri Sameer Behar, P.L. for fhe State. ORAL ORDER (19-4-2010) 1. This is miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule l(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 5-5-2009 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 22-A/2008 whereby and whereunder the plalntiflTs application for grant of temporary injiinction has been allowed against the defendants. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are as iinder:- 3. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to seU allegedly executed between the plamtifT and fhe defendant No. 1, also filed an appUcation for grant ofinjunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from alienating fhe suit property. 4. Leamed trial Court on appreciation of material pfaced on record, granted injunction in favour ofthe respondent No. 1 against aU the defendants. Hence this appeal. 8. 9. Leamed counsel for the appellant would submit fhat the execution of fhe agreement to sell has been specifically denied by fhe defendant No. 1 as the same is forged and fabricated. As per plaintiflFs case, the alleged agreement to seU has been executed by the defendant no. 1 and despite that, leamed trial Court has granted injunction against all fhe defendants which is perse fllegal and deserves to be set aside. On fhe other hand, Shri Tiwari, leamed Sr. Coiinsel supported fhe order tmpugned and submitted that in fhe facts and circumstances ofthecase, leamed trial Court has rightly passed the order which deseryes to be upheld. He would further contend that the matter has been ripe for evidence and in such a situation fhe Court may not disturb the order passed by the trial Court. Be that as it may, wifhout entering into fhe merits of fhe case as tiie case has already ripe for evidence, it would be suffice to say fhat at least leamed Trial Court went wrong in issuing injiinction against the appellants No. 2 to 5 for which in fact, fhe plaintiflThas not prayed for any relief. In view of above, wifhout expressing any opinion even prima facie on the merits of fhe matter, the impugned order is modified and the injunction order granted against fhe appellants No.2 to 5 is hereby set aside. It is also directed that the trial Court shaU decide fhe matter as earty as possible preferably within a period of nine months from fhe date of receipt of certified copy of this order on its own merits in accordance wifh law. The appeal is partiy allowed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge