( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the 4th respondent in Special Civil Application no. 5253 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge restraining her from further alienating or transferring the property in question, in any manner whatsoever, till the writ petition is disposed of.

( 2 ) THE dispute centers round the immovable property situated in village mangrol of Junagadh District. Property was sold to the appellant by respondents nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein vide a registered sale deed dated 23. 12. 2004. Special Civil suit No. 6 of 2005 was instituted by respondent No. 1 herein before the Court of civil Judge (S. D.) against the appellant and other respondents, seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 23. 12. 2004. In the Suit, respondent No. 1 had preferred an application for injunction, restraining the appellant from transferring or alienating the immovable property in question. Injunction application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Junagadh, on 18. 12. 2006. Aggrieved by the said order, 1st respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 43 of 2007 before the 7th Fast track Court at Junagadh, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26. 02. 2008, against which 1st respondent filed Special Civil Application No. 5253 of 2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 18. 12. 2006 and 26. 02. 2008 passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court respectively.

( 3 ) MR. Shalin Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in upsetting a well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. Learned counsel submitted that no reasons have been stated by the learned Single Judge for upsetting the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court. Elaborate reasons have been given by the trial Court and the appellate Court in refusing the prayer for injunction, in the event of which, unless and until the orders passed by the trial court and the appellate Court are perverse and not in conformity with the provisions contained under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, learned Single Judge was not justified in upsetting those orders.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel submitted that it is well settled that while passing any order or injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, the Court is required to consider the three basic principles, viz. , prima facie case, balance of convenience and inconvenience, and irreparable loss or injury. All these facts were taken into consideration by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court in refusing the injunction prayed for by the respondent No. 1. Under these circumstances, without stating any reasons whatsoever, the learned Single Judge was not justified in upsetting those orders, especially under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) IN support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court State of U. P. and others v. Modern Transport Co. , Ludhiana and another (2002) 9 SCC 514 and Special director and another V. Mohd. Ghulam ghouse and another (2004) 3 SCC 440. Learned counsel also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Apex Court in civil Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2009 and made a specific reference to paragraphs nos. 21 and 22 of the judgment.

( 6 ) MR. T. S. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel submitted that the learned single Judge has only restrained 4th respondent from alienating or transferring the property in question, and not disposed of the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that the 4th respondent can urge all her contentions before the learned Single judge, and there is no justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

( 7 ) WE may point