- (1.) With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties the present writ petition is decided finally at the admission stage.
(2.) The present writ petition filed by the petitioner-defendant under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.134/2011, whereby the trial court has continued the ad-interim order dated 28.04.2012, directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the disputed property, and permitted the respondent-plaintiff to convert the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 into an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.
(3.) In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant, alleging interalia that the petitioner-defendant had entered into the MOU dated 24.06.2010 for developing the lands in question, and pursuant to the said MOU the respondent-plaintiff had paid Rs.51 lacs to the petitioner. It was further alleged that thereafter the land use was also changed, but the formal lease deed could not be issued by the JDA within the time stipulated in the MOU, and therefore the parties had extended the said time limit till the issuance of lease deed by the JDA. However, since the respondent-plaintiff apprehended that the petitioner-defendant would alienate or create third party interest in the said property, the suit was filed. In the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff also filed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, which was resisted by the petitioner-defendant. The trial court vide the order dated 21.12.2011 dismissed the said application of the respondent-plaintiff, against which Civil Misc. Appeal being No.380/2012 was preferred by the respondent before the High Court. Pending the said appeal, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 alleging subsequent change of circumstances interalia that in the process of issuance of lease deed for the lands in dispute, the sanction was accorded by the JDA on 11.04.2012 and the issuance of lease deed was in process. On 28.04.2012 the court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties passed the following order:- " XXX XXX XXX.";