- (1.) The present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC is directed against the order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.18, Jaipur Mahanagar, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Misc. Application No.105/2012, whereby the trial court has dismissed the said application of the appellants-plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction in respect of the land in question under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.
(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the appellants-plaintiffs has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 06.04.2011 allegedly executed by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs in respect of the suit land for consideration of Rs.1.11 crore. According to the appellants-plaintiffs they had paid Rs.25 lacs on the said date, and thereafter on 30.04.2011, the appellants-plaintiffs paid Rs.46 lacs to the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 and the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 had handed over the possession of the suit land to the appellants. It is also further case of the appellants-plaintiffs that the respondent No.1 also had executed the receipt for Rs.71 lacs and for handing over the possession. However, the respondent No.1 had executed the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 on 29.08.2011, and therefore, the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking specific performance of his agreement and for permanent injunction. The appellants-plaintiffs had also filed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit land, however the same has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the appellants that the appellants-plaintiffs had parted with the huge amount of Rs.71 lacs for purchasing the land in question, and the respondent No.1 had also acknowledged the receipt of the said amount, and of handing over the possession to the appellants. According to Mr. Ranjan, the trial court had also granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the appellants which remained in force for about 16 months and there being triable issues involved in the suit, the trial court had committed an error in not continuing the said ad-interim order during the pendency of the suit. However, the learned senior counsel Mr. GS Bapna for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the agreement in question of which a specific performance has been sought by the appellants, has been found to be forged one by the trial court. He further submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 had become the owner by virtue of the registered sale deed executed by the respondent No.1 in their favour on receiving the payment of Rs.1.32 lacs, out of which about 1.29 lacs were paid by cheques.;