Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE appellant -plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC challenging the order dated 31.7.13 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 11, Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Misc. Case No. 390/12, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the appellant -plaintiff seeking temporary injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. It appears that the appellant has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents -defendants and pending the suit the appellant had filed an application seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, alleging interalia that the plaintiff had 1/10th share in the suit land alongwith his co -sharers; that the respondent No. 1 was the partnership firm, of which respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were the partners, who had proposed to purchase the land in question from the plaintiff and his brothers for which an agreement was entered into on 29.7.02. According to the appellant, the residential houses and other accommodation, where the plaintiff and his family members were residing, were not the part of the said agreement, and it was settled between the parties that after getting the conversion of the land, for non -agricultural use, the respondents -defendants would provide Patta to the plaintiffs with regard to the land admeasuring 1129 sq. yards, however, the respondents -defendants did not act as per the said agreement and that the respondents were threatening the plaintiff to dispossess them from the suit land and therefore the suit for permanent injunction and the application for temporary injunction was filed by the appellant -plaintiff pending the suit. The said application was resisted by the respondents -defendants denying the allegations, and further contending interalia that the land in question was already permitted to be converted for non -agricultural use, as per the provisions contained in Section 90 -B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and that after the conversion, the same was allotted to the members of the society and that there was no condition put in the agreement to issue Patta in favour of the appellant for 1129 sq. yards of land as alleged by the appellant -plaintiff. The trial court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and taking into consideration the documents on record dismissed the said application of the appellant vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma for the appellant that the respondents did not act as per the agreement in question and had grabbed the entire land, though they had agreed to issue Patta in respect of part of the land which was in possession of the plaintiff being used for residential purpose. He also submitted that pending the suit, the interest of the plaintiff is required to be protected, otherwise it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed by the appellant that the land in question was developed by the respondents after getting it converted for non -agricultural use as per Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the same was further sold out to the members of the society who are in possession at present. It further appears that the appellant -plaintiff himself had appointed the respondent Mohan Sharma as his power of attorney holder by executing the necessary document on 1.8.03. The trial court has passed the impugned order in detail taking into consideration all factual and legal aspects in the matter and has further held that the appellant -plaintiff has not come with clean hands and therefore was not entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for. The learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any substance in the present appeal and therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed.;