1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 1848 of 2007 SMT.SARASWATI V/S OM PRAKASH & ORS. Mr. SAJJAN SINGH, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 26.7.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order, and the application filed for temporary injunction. From reading of the application, it is clear that it is nowhere the averment of the appellant that she is in actual physical cultivatory possession of the land, rather she claimed to be in joint possession alongwith the brothers. Admittedly, brothers have not challenged the sale. It is again a different story that a compromise decree has already been passed in the year 1987, which is also sought to be quashed. Thus, it is clear that the appellant cannot be said to be in actual physical possession, so as to be entitled to restrain the respondents from interfering with her possession. It was then contended that the purchasers are likely to alienate the property, or get it converted into Abadi, and then alienate it, and therefore, they be 2 restrained from so alienating the property, or creating any encumbrances. In this regard, it would suffice to say that neither any such averment is there in the application for temporary injunction, nor any such prayer is made therein. In that view of the matter, at the appellate stage, I am not inclined to entertain such prayer, which was not made before the learned trial Court. The appeal thus, has no force, and is dismissed summarily. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/