Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—Appellant-defendant has laid this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) being aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali (for short, ‘learned trial Court’).

2. By the order impugned, learned Court below has directed respondent No.2 to 4 to maintain status quo regarding the land records and further restrained respondent No.5 from taking any further action in the matter. The complete text of the order reads as under:

10-09-2014 odhy izkFkhZ Jh ,y-,u- fllksfn;k mi-A vizkFkhZ la- ,d dk uksVhl vne rkehy ykSVkA iqu% ih-,Q- uksVhl iss'k gksus ij rych tkjh gksA

vizkFkhZx.k la 2 ls 4 dh rjQ ls ,-Mh-Mh- ih-ih- Jh vkdkjke Vkad mi-A vizkFkhZ la 5 dh rjQ ls uxj ikfydk lkstr ds vf/koDrk Jh pUns'ks[kj Jhekyh mi-A tokc iss'k djus gsrw ekSdk pkgkA

;FkkfLFkfr ij lquk x;kA vizkFkhZx.k la 2 ls 4 dks jktLo jsdMZ dh ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kus gsrw o vizkFkhZ la[;k 6 dks fu;eu dh dk;Zokgh vkxkeh iss'kh rd u fd;s tkus ckcr ikcan fd;k tkrk gSA

i=koyh okLrs iss;'k gksus tokc vizkFkhZ la-2 ls 5 o voyksdu rkehy vizkFkhZ ,d gsrw fnukad 30-09-2014 dks is'k gksA

vij ftyk U;k;k/khs'k tSrkj.k] ftyk ikyh ¼jkt-½

The order impugned, quoted hereinabove, is passed by the learned trial Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in a suit for specific performance of contract filed by respondent-plaintiff with the relief of perpetual injunction restraining appellant-defendant from alienating the property in question by execution of a registered instrument of transfer.

3. Learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Vinay Jain, submits that at the threshold on 9.9.2014 the learned Court below issued notices of the application for temporary injunction to all the defendants including the appellant and posted the matter for 10.9.2014, and on 10.9.2014 admittedly the notices were not served on the appellant yet the learned Court below has passed the above quoted impugned order which is not sustainable. Mr. Vinay Jain submits that once the Court has issued notices, it was desirable from the learned Court below to have passed order adversely affecting the appellant after service of notice and by not doing so the learned Court below has committed grave and serious error of law in exercise of its jurisdiction. Lastly, Mr. Vinay Jain submits that the order impugned speak volumes about the fact that learned trial Court has not at all considered the necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction before passing the ex-parte temporary injunction order. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors. ((2011) 8 SCC 249), wherein Court held:

44. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable bipartite orders. Experience reveals that ex parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to grant ex parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.

4. Per contra, Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that appeal as such against the ex-parte interim injunction order is not maintainable. Reliance in this behalf is placed on decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court Pritam Singh & Ors. vs. Charan Dass Dogra & Ors. (AIR 1973 Himachal Pradesh 90) and Ma