- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendant no.2 Tiloka Ram against the plaintiff Bhikha Ram and defendant No.1 Saro Devi being aggrieved by the order dated 16/2/2012 passed by the Learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra in Civil Misc. Case No. 3/2011 partly allowing the temporary injunction application of the respondent plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and directing the defendants to maintain status quo of the suit property, which is a plot of land measuring 100'x50' situated in District Barmer.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant defendant, Mr. Dinesh Mehta, submitted that the plot of land in question was purchased by Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 registered sale deed by the appellant defendant Tiloka Ram on 18/8/1998 for a sum of Rs. 9285/- from the defendant no.1 Smt. Saro Devi, whereas, the plaintiff Bikha Ram claimed the same plot of land under an agreement to sell executed by the defendant no.1 Smt.Saro Devi in his favour on 23/6/1998 for a sum of Rs. 2,51,000/- under which agreement, a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- is said to have been paid in cash as advance to the said defendant no.1 Smt. Saro Devi. He submitted that under a registered sale deed dated 18/8/1998, the appellant defendant no.2, Tiloka Ram, had also received possession of the said plot and started raising construction as a registered owner thereof and in the present suit filed after 11 years of the alleged agreement for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed by plaintiff Bhika Ram, who is close relative of appellant Tiloka Ram, being his uncle, in which the present temporary injunction application was partly allowed by the learned court below and the appellant defendant is restrained to raise construction and maintain status quo of the suit property and being aggrieved of the same, the appellant has prefered the present appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant defendant relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kante vs. Anuradha Kante & Ors., 2010 2 SCC 77 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the interim order was passed preventing respondent 10 from carrying out construction activities over disputed Judgment dt: 11/4/2012 land, respondent 10 would suffer irreparable loss and injury as he would not be able to utilise property till suit was disposed of, which could take several years at original stage as well as at appellate stage and in view of such facts and circumstances sufficient protection was afforded by the order of the High Court restraining the respondent 10 from transferring/alienating the disputed property or creating third party right therein during the pendency of suit and the refusal order of the High Court from restraining the respondent 10 from carrying out construction activity over the disputed land was not liable to be interfered with.;