Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition filed under Sec. 115 of CPC is directed against the order dt. 08.08.2012 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') whereby the appellate Court has set aside the order dt. 12.03.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in T.I. Application No. 19/11. In the instant case it appears that the petitioners -plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dt. 15.01.1983 allegedly executed by the forefathers of the respondents -defendants in favour of the forefathers of the appellants. In the said suit the petitioners had also filed the application seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit land, which was allowed by the trial Court vide the order dt. 12.03.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents had preferred the appeal before the appellate Court, which has been allowed vide the impugned order dt. 08.08.2012.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. D.P. Sharma for the petitioners -plaintiffs that the trial Court having granted injunction in favour of the petitioners after having been satisfied about the prima facie case, the appellate Court should not have interfered with the said order. According to him, it would be a matter of evidence as to whether the agreement in question was executed between the forefathers of the parties or not, however in order to prevent further multiplicity of proceedings, the respondents were required to be restrained from transferring or alienating the suit land. He also submitted that the appellate Court should not have recorded any finding with regard to probative value of the agreement in question, which might come in the way of the petitioners at the time of trial of the suit. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Mishri Lal & Anr. vs. Ram Dev & Ors.,, 1998 WLC (Raj.) UC, 610 to submit that the probative value of the document cannot be examined while examining the prima facie case of the plaintiff. The Court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Not only that the appellant Court has prima facie found the agreement in question to be inadmissible in evidence, the suit itself appears to be grossly time barred, inasmuch as the agreement sought to be performed is dt. 15.01.1983 and the petitioners -plaintiffs had filed the suit in the year 2011. Be that as it may, the appellate Court having rightly considered the prima facie case against the petitioners, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. There cannot be any disagreement with the observations made by this Court in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to the effect that when the Court is examining the prima facie case, the Court is not required to finally determine the validity of the document or its probative value. However, in the instant case the appellate Court has not finally determined the validity of the document nor has decided its probative value, but has considered the prima facie case of the petitioners -plaintiffs to decide as to whether the temporary injunction as prayed for should have been granted by the trial Court or not. The appellate Court has rightly held that petitioners -plaintiffs having failed to establish any prima facie case in their favour, they were not entitled to the injunction as prayed for. In that view of the matter, the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;