KISHORE SINGH LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by one of the defendants against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated November 19, 1984 granting temporary injunction against the defendants directing them not raise any construction over the property in dispute and to maintain the status quo and also not to transfer any part of the property.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this apnea! may briefly be stated here. The plaintiff Shantimal filed a suit for per -emption in respect of the properties sold by defendant No. 1 Dr. Kan Mal on the ground that plaintiff Shantimal, Dr. Kantimal and Suraj Mal are sons of Gumanmal. Gumanmal had acquired the property described in para 1 of the plaint by foreclosure and also raised certain more construction after acquiring the property. The whole building, thus constructed is known as Bhansali Building. It is further alleged that Guman Mal gifted the suit property to his three sons in separate definite shares by registered gift -deed dated August 26, 1958. The pol of the property was kept joint and the passage through the pol was also joint. The three brothers took possession of their respective shares. The case of the plaintiff further was that defendant No. 1 Kanmal disposed of his share of the property to defendants No. 2 to 13 by different sale -deeds, which were got registered on September 1, 1982 without any notice to the plaintiff and keeping perfect secrecy about the negotiation of the same. The plaintiff further claimed that the sale -price has been exaggerated in the sale -deed although the real consideration received by defendant No. 1 was much less. The plaintiff further alleged that as the property sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 to II and the property which is in possession of the plaintiff are parts of the same property, under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Pre -emption Act, it was incumbent upon defendant No. 1 to have given a notice to the plaintiff offering him to sell the property in dispute, but this was not done nor the other defendants ever gave such notice to the plaintiff before they purchased the property. The plaintiff claimed the right of pie -emption on the ground that he was a co -sharer in the property and also because the Pol and the passage through Pol was common between the three parts of the same building, which had been gifted by Shri Guman Mal to his three sons. He also alleged that he being the real brother of the seller, he is pre -emptor of the first class. He also claimed pre -emption on some other grounds, with which I am not very much concerned at present. He, thus, claimed the right of preemption on the properties sold by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 11. The sales are dated Sept. 1, 1982. The suit was filed on Sept. 1, 1983 and, there after, an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, CPC was filed by the plaintiff on July 17, 1984 praying for a temporary injunction against the defendants from making any addition or alteration or construction over the property sold by defendant No. 1 to defendants No 2 to 11 and also restraining them from further transferring the same. It was alleged that some of the defendants - purchasers had already started construction making addition and alterations in the parts purchased by them and if they were not restrained from doing so, complications will arise and the plaintiff will be put to irreparable injury. It was also alleged that some of them were trying to dispose of their parts of the property and if that is allowed to be done pending the suit, then also the plaintiff would be suffering irreparable injury and complications would arise in the suit. The application was supported by the affidavit of plaintiff Shantimal. Notices were issued on this application to the defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on August 10, 1984. An application was filed on behalf of defendant Jugal Kishore that he has not been supplied with the copy of the application and the affidavit and prayed that he maybe supplied with them so that he could file a proper reply to the application, and reserving his right to file a proper reply, he alleged that the application was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no right to file such an application. He was, thereupon, supplied with the requisite copies but no reply has been filed by him or any of the other defendants. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to maintain the status quo and restraining them from making any addition or alteration or construction on it or transferring it in any manner, by his order dated November 19, 1984. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by defendant Jugal Kishore.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 1. The other respondents have not appeared despite service.;