Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is seeking relief against the respondent No. 1 only and the relief of the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 be restrained from alienating the property in dispute which she has purchased from the respondent No. 2. It appears that the dispute arose because of sale of agriculture land by respondent No. 2 Smt. Bholi Bai, who according to the appellant, is not wedded wife of deceased Narayan, father of the appellant.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the appellant filed a suit in the revenue Court and the injunction application was pending in the revenue Court, still she has filed the present suit and sought injunction which was refused by the Court below after considering the fact that the suit property was mutated in the name of the appellant and the respondent No. 2 also and both of them dealt with the property for such a long period.;