Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsels for the parties finally as both the learned Counsels argued the writ petition on merits.
(2.) THE trial Court granted injunction order in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner vide order dt. 22.10.2007 against which the appeal was preferred by the respondents. The appellate Court upheld the order of injunction so far as preventing the respondents from selling the property in dispute but removed the condition against the mortgage of property in dispute by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred. Once the two Courts below found prima -facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner and that finding has been concurrent, then during pendency of the suit, if the respondents will be allowed to create charge or mortgage the property in dispute, then that will be creating the charge over the property which may be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner to the extent that the mortgagee who may advance the loan to the mortgagor with the virtual leave of the Court, may have claim over the entire immovable property which may deprive the petitioner from the property to its full value if the consideration and interest will be burdened.
(3.) THERE was no reason for the appellate Court to remove the condition against the mortgage of the property imposed against the respondents and thereby, the first appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering in the order passed by the trial Court.;