- (1.) By the Court-Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal, Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Agrawal for the appellant and Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vishnu Gupta, Advocate appearing for the respondent.
(2.) By consent of the parties, we proceed to hear the appeal finally and dispose of it finally.
(3.) This first appeal from order under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad granting temporary injunction. The appellant is defendant in the suit. Suit No. 637 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent on 26.4.2010 on which date the trial Court issued notice on application 6c fixing 29.4.2010. On 29.4.2010 the Court noticed the endorsement on the notice that defendant after seeing the notice informed that he will appear on the date fixed but refused to sign the notice. No one appeared on behalf of the defendant on 29.4.2010. The Court considered the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has purchased the property and defendant is changing the structure of the premises. The copy of the sale deed and photo graph of spot was filed by the plaintiff. The Court directed the case to be put up on date fixed, i.e., 1.7.2010, and in the meantime, defendant was directed to maintain status quo over the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order contended that the notice was never tendered to the defendant and the trial Court without adverting to the necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction and without recording any finding with regard to ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss granted temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Court in Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corporation and others, 2009 (11) SCC 229.;