- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant has sought relief in this appeal for setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.3.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4, Meerut in Original Suit No. 1266 of 2007 and reject the application 8Ga for temporary injunction. The Court while granting temporary injunction has passed the following order, operative portion of which, reads thus: The High Court in similar facts and circumstances in F.A.F.O. No. 271 of 2011, Jitendra Verma v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and another, on 1.2.2011 has passed the following order. The operative portion of the said order reads thus: We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various plea raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case as to whether the interim award has been obtained by collusion or not as the objections are pending before the learned District Judge, we cannot preempt the decision in the arbitration case herein. We, therefore, decline to go into this issue. According to appellant, as he has purchased the property in question for valuable consideration but the fact remains that the said property is subject matter of suit giving rise to the present appeal against the impugned order granting temporary injunction the principle of lis pendens would be applicable and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the appellant be restrained to alienate, transfer and encumber the said property during the pendency of the suit. So far as the order regarding maintenance of status quo is concerned, we are of the opinion that it was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order dated 27th October, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut is modified and it is directed that the appellant shall not transfer, alienate and encumber the property in question during the pendency of the suit. The appeal stands disposed of.
(2.) Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, submits that intention of the order of status quo conveyed by order dated 1.2.2011 passed in F.A.F.O. No. 271 of 2011 is same, hence same order may be passed in this case also.
(3.) In the circumstances, we modify the order dated 26.3.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4, Meerut in O.S. No. 1266 of 2007, and pass the order in the same terms and conditions as contained in the judgment dated 1.2.2011 passed in F.A.F.O. No. 271 of 2011 and direct that the appellant shall not transfer, alienate and encumber the property in question during the pendency or the suit. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid directions.;