1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2135/2007. (MOOLA VS. JETHU SINGH ) DATE OF ORDER : 03.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Sajjan Singh for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Poonia for the respondent. By this appeal, a challenge is given by the defendant- appellant to the order dated 26.07.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Churu in Civil Misc. Case No.05/07. By the order aforesaid, the learned trial court, while accepting an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, by issuing a temporary injunction restrained the defendant from transfering, selling or otherwise alienating or creating any incumberence on the land bearing Khasra No.150 measuring 40 bighas, out of the land measuring 98 bighas and 15 biswas. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in a suit for recovery of money, the trial court should not have passed any injunction restraining the defendant from selling, transfering or otherwise alienating or creating any incumberence on a part of the land in dispute. While meeting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the 2 plaintiff-respondent upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation vs. M/s. Engineering Sales Corporation & ors. reported in 2001(5) WLC (Raj.) -386 holding therein that “injunction can be granted in a suit for recovery of money, once the court is satisfied that the defendants threatens or intends to remove or to dispose of his property.” In the instant matter, the temporary injunction is issued by the trial court with a view to protect rights of the plaintiff on being satisfied that the defendant may frustrate the purpose of the filing of the suit for recovery of money by transfering or selling or otherwise alienating the immovable property. It is relevant to note that the suit for recovery of money was filed by the plaintiff by alleging failure on part of the defendant to perform sale of 40 bighas of land in Khasra No.150 in pursuant to an agreement said to be made on 21.01.2004. The order impugned in no way is capricious, perverse or against the settled prepositions of law. Thus, no case is made out for interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/