The preservation of property through a temporary injunction is essential to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and protect the interests of parties during ongoing litigation.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The MFA is filed challenging the order of allowing I.A.II filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, directing the defendant not to alienate or encumber the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit, i.e. in respect of 'A' schedule property. The Trial Court ordered not to make any alterations or changes in the said property.

3. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contends that the Trial Court committed an error in passing such order, when there was a partition deed and also submits that the suit is filed by first respondent, who was 83 years old at the time of filing the suit and fails to take note of the fact that he does not have any right in respect of suit schedule property. The Trial Court also has not considered that it is not in dispute that suit schedule property has already been partitioned as per the registered partition deed dated 30.04.2008. The suit came to be filed in the year 2015. The registered partition deed is well within the knowledge of first respondent and the appellant had infact sold some portion of the land to the third parties and those purchasers have already been impleaded as additional defendants. Without considering all these matters Trial Court has allowed the application. Counsel submits that if order of temporary injunction is enforced, it affects the appellant. Hence, it requires interference.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the Trial Court while answering the prima facie case in paragraph 12 has taken note of the material placed by the appellant and also formulated a point that the suit property is to be preserved till the disposal of the suit. If the Court permits alienating of the property by changing its nature, it may lead to damage and multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, question of interference does not arise.

5. Having heard appellant's counsel and also the respondent's counsel, when the main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that already there was a partition deed of the year 2008 and the suit is filed for the relief of partition, the right of the plaintiff is to be ascertained in the trial and the matter is to be considered on merits. The relationship is not in dispute. When such being the case, if the property is alienated the same would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The same has been observed by the Trial Court while granting the interim relief. If the nature of the property is changed during the pendency of the suit, it may also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. When such reasons are given by the Trial Court, I find no error in Trial Court granting the temporary injunction directing not to alienate or change the nature of the property. It is admitted by both the counsels that already evidence is commenced and the matter is set out for cross examination of PW.1 and the suit is of the year 2015. Almost 9 years has been elapsed. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose off the suit within 9 months from today and no interference is required.

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the PO of the Trial Court forthwith to comply with the directions.