A.K.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD the arguments and perused the relevant record.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12th August, 93 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 34/93, whereby the appellant's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected. The appellant's case is that he was in possession of the property in dispute on 11.5.93, the date on which he was dispossessed in execution of a decree obtained by the respondent Suraj Mal against one Sewak Ram. Before his dispossession, when he came to know about the decree passed against Sewak Ram, he moved the Executing Court but his application was rejected. He filed a revision petition before this Court against the order of rejection of his application, but the revision petition was also rejected on the ground that he was a stranger to the decree passed in favour of Suraj Mal (respondent). It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant filed a suit in the lower court with a view to obtain a permanent injunction against the execution of the decree passed in favour of Suraj Mal, and simultaneously filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for interim stay of the execution proceedings, but the application for injunction was dismissed. An appeal preferred against the order of dismissal was also rejected and consequently, the suit was not pressed. Thereafter, the appellant filed the civil original suit No. 23/93 in the court of the District Judge, Jodhpur Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession on the ground that he was illegally dispossessed in execution of the decree. That suit was transferred to the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and it is pending in that court. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the appellant in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur praying that the defendant Suraj Mal be restrained from bringing about any changes in the property in suit and to maintain the status quo, but that application has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by order dated 12.8.93 and against that order this appeal has been filed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur is wrong in as much as the appellant, who was illegally dispossessed of the property in suit, was entitled to obtain an injunction against the defendant directing the defendant to maintain the status quo and restraining him from making any alteration in the suit premises.;