The court can direct the maintenance of status-quo and restrain alienation, transfer, or creation of charge over property pending a suit when triable issues are involved.

1. - With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

2. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.11 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter as referred to trial court) in misc. application No.57/2012 in civil suit no.170/2012.

3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of the property in question. During pendency of the suit, the appellant-plaintiff also made an application under Order XXXlX Rule 1 & 2 seeking temporary injunction, which has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the property in question belongs to the joint family comprising himself and the father of the respondents No.1 & 2, however it was purchased in the name of respondent No.1 Madan Lal. According to him a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 03.02.1983, whereby the property in question had fallen into the share of the appellant, however the respondents No.1 and 2 have sold out the said property to the respondent No.3 and hence the suit was filed. Further, he submits that the trial court has committed an error in not granting the application of the appellant seeking temporary injunction.

5. However, the learned counsel Mr. Sri Ram Yadav appearing for the respondents-defendants has submitted that the suit property belonged to the respondent No.1 only, who has now sold out to the respondent No.3 and accordingly at present the respondent No.3 is in possession thereof. Challenging the alleged settlement, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that no such settlement had ever taken place or acted upon, and hence the trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant-plaintiff.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit claiming his right in the property in question, relying upon the alleged settlement dated 03.02.1983. However, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out as to whether the said settlement was ever acted upon. Be that as it may, since suit is pending before the trial court, it will be a matter of the evidence as to whether the appellant-plaintiff has any legal right in the said property or not. Since there are triable issues involved in the suit, it would be in the interest of justice, if the respondents-defendants are directed to maintain status-quo as regards the possession of the suit property and are restrained from alienating, transferring or creating any charge over the suit property, pending the suit.

7. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo as regards the possession of the suit property and further are restrained from alienating, transferring or creating any charge over the suit property till the pendency of the suit. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.Appeal allowed.

*******