Sandeep Mehta, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, has moved an application for dispensing with the service of the respondents No. 13 to 46. By way of the application, it is claimed that the contesting parties are only the respondents No. 1 to 12, therefore, the service on the respondents No. 13 to 46 may be dispensed with.

2. Mr. Sajjan Singh has entered caveat on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 9.

3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 2/2014 whereby the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction was dismissed.

4. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of will dated 10.07.1991 and permanent injunction in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sujangarh. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also moved along with the suit seeking temporary injunction with the prayer to restrain the defendants from alienating, transferring the suit premises and