- (1.) APPELLANT plaintiff by the instant appeal has called in question the impugned order dated 23rd of March 2013, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, whereby the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction was rejected.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, facts of the case are that the appellant laid a suit for specific performance of contract before the learned trial Court against the respondent with the averment that there was an agreement to sale between the rival parties for the disputed plot. Alongwith the suit for specific performance of contract, the appellant also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking interim relief of restraining the respondent from alienating the plot and to maintain status quo regarding plot in dispute. Learned trial Court, after hearing the rival parties, by the impugned order declined the relief of temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Bheem Arora has argued that in a suit for specific performance of contract further alienation of the property can create many complications and further any alteration in the property can complicate the situation by the time the suit is finally adjudicated, and therefore, the learned Court below ought to have taken cognizance of these facts so as to preserve and protect the plot in dispute by maintaining status quo. Learned counsel would urge that looking to the nature of relief sought in the suit, learned Court below ought to have exercised discretion in favour of appellant to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Mr. Arora has strenuously urged that while passing the impugned order the learned Court below has not examined the matter in right perspective, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
(3.) PER contra, Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the impugned order has submitted that the learned Court below has examined the matter threadbare and thereafter declined the relief of temporary injunction, which calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Shambhoo Singh would urge that powers of the appellate Court in the matter of temporary injunction are to be exercised sparingly because granting or refusing injunction is within the sole discretion of the trial Court.;