- (1.)THE present Misc. Appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r)of CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 against the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Addl.District Judge No.2, Sikar in Misc.Case No.45/2007, whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 has been partly allowed to the extent that the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property in question.
(2.)AT the outset, it is required to be noted that though the impugned order is dated 11.10.2007, the appellants do not appear to have made any effort to get the impugned order stayed till this date i.e.for about 5 years and the same is operating against the appellants as on today.
So far as the facts of the case are concerned, the present respondents No. 2 to 7 (original plaintiffs) have filed the suit against the present appellants and the respondents No. 8 to 15 (original defendants) seeking partition, permanent injunction and for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 12.9.2007 executed by the respondents No. 8 to 12 in favour of the appellants. In the said suit, the plaintiffs had also filed application seeking temporary injunction in which the lower court has passed the impugned order.

It was sought to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have purchased the property in question from the real owners, and the plaintiffs had no right to seek any injunction or the relief against the appellants-defendants. She also submitted that the appellants are in possession of the suit property and the concerned respondents-plaintiffs having no right, title or interest in the suit property, the impugned order passed by the lower court deserves to be set aside.

There is no substance in the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The lower court after considering the prima facie case and the balance of convenience has passed the order which does not call for any interference of this court in the present appeal. It may also be noted that the suit involves highly disputed questions of facts which could be decided only after the parties lead their respective evidence and therefore also it is desirable that the parties should maintain status quo as regards the suit property.

In that view of the matter, there being no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. omAll corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Om Prakash

(3.)THOUGH at the request of learned counsel for the appellants, S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.5417/2009 was tagged along with the present appeal, now, it is stated that the said appeal is not connected with the present appeal. Hence, S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.5417/2009 is ordered to be de-linked from the present appeal.