P K LOHRA, J.

1. By the instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC, appellant-defendant has assailed order dated 1st of June, 2018, passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by the order impugned, has partly allowed application of the respondent-plaintiffs under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction in a suit for cancellation of sale-deeds and perpetual injunction. In this matter, the plaintiff-respondents have also filed cross-objection and have prayed for granting relief in toto as prayed in the application filed by them under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit against appellant-defendant and others before the learned trial Court for cancellation of sale-deed dated 5th of June, 2006 in favour of appellant as well as sale-deed dated 27th of February, 1999 in favour of proforma respondent No.6 and prayed for permanent injunction. As per the version of respondent-plaintiffs, the measurement in the sale-deeds towards western side is shown erroneous as the same has been depicted in the instruments 43 ft. instead of 13 ft. and the total land sold was 239.55 sq.ft. and 166.22 sq.ft. With these averments, it is prayed that the sale-deeds be cancelled and declared null and void. Apart from the relief of cancellation of sale-deeds, respondent-plaintiffs also prayed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from raising any construction beyond 13 ft. land and creating any third party interest on the land in question. The suit is contested by the appellant by filing written statement denying all the averments.

3. Alongwith the plaint, on behalf of respondent-plaintiffs an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed for temporary injunction. The application for temporary injunction is contested by appellant and the learned trial Court after hearing arguments of rival parties by the impugned order partly allowed the application for temporary injunction. The learned trial Court, by the order impugned, restrained the appellant from raising construction towards western side of Plot No.69 beyond 13 ft. and maintain status quo regarding construction as per the report of Commissioner. It is further ordered that the appellant may not alienate the property in question so as to create third party interest.

4. Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in granting temporary injunction. While persisting with his argument to question legality and propriety of the impugned order, in the alternative it is submitted by Mr. Saruparia that requisite construction has already been completed at the site and therefore appellant may be permitted to carry out finishing work subject to his undertaking of doing the same at his own risk and peril. Elaborating his submission in this behalf, Mr. Saruparia contends that even before the learned trial Court, the situation was clear but despite noticing factum of completion of construction work, learned trial Court has not granted limited indulgence to the appellant to carry out finishing work. He, therefore, submits that appellant may be allowed to carry out finishing work subject to his undertaking that in the event of final outcome of case against him, he would remove the construction at his own cost and shall not claim any equity for the construction as well as finishing work carried out by him. Taking exception to the cross-objection submitted by respondent-plaintiffs, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that cross-objections are bereft of any merit and therefore liable to be rejected. In support of his arguments, Mr. Saruparia has placed reliance on following judgments:

ECE Industries Ltd. Vs. S.P. Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,2009 Supp AIR SC 2093

Mandali Ranganna &