JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this civil misc. appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 03.09.2021 whereby and whereunder an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been allowed and during the course of trial of the civil suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff, the appellants-defendants have been restrained not to transfer the disputed land and to maintain status quo until the decision of the civil suit.

2. In the present appeal, the consideration before this Court is that when the trial court has exercised its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants, should this Court interfere with the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court, under its appellate jurisdiction?

3. The appellants are defendant Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 & 3 are defendant Nos.4 & 5 before the trial court. For clarity, the parties shall be referred hereinafter with the same status as called before the trial court.

4. The relevant facts of this case as culled out from the record are that plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30.04.2014 along with an application for temporary injunction in the year 2014 itself. The plaintiff has relied upon an agreement dated 30.04.2014 to contend that the defendant No.1 for himself and being power of attorney holder for defendant Nos.2 & 3 had agreed to sell the land of 0.49 hectare of Khasra No.961 located at Village Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu to him against total sale consideration of Rs.56,30,000/-. Plaintiff has placed on record the agreement as also the special power of attorney said to be given by defendant Nos.2 & 3 in favour of defendant No.1. As per agreement, entire sale consideration has been paid and the possession is delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff averred that although he was assured by the defendants to execute the registered sale deed however, it transpired to him that instead of making the sale deed in his favour, the defendants are going to sale their land to other person(s). In that backdrop of facts, the plaintiff filed the present civil suit for specific performance along with an application for temporary injunction.

5. One of the relevant facts is also available on record that the defendants have already executed a registered sale deed dated 22.05.2014 for the area of 0.41 hectare of Khasra No.961 in favour of the plaintiff's father namely, Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma and one Shri Vinod Kumar Bhageria and that sale deed is in relation to area of 0.41 hectare which is other part of land, than the area of 0.49 hectare of Khasra No.961 agreed to be sold to plaintiff through the agreement in question dated 30.04.2014.

6. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that the trial court has committed serious illegality and perversity in granting the injunction in the present case whereas the civil suit for specific performance itself stand bad in law and is not liable to succeed on merits, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for any temporary junction in his favour. She submits that the agreement in question dated 30.04.2014 itself is a void document as it suffers from uncertainty because the specifications and parameter of the land in question measuring 0.49 hectare of Khasra No.961 are absent, as such by virtue of Section 29 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, this agreement be treated as void contract. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the agreement in question is neither registered nor properly stamped, therefore, cannot be relied upon before the court of law. She argued that neither sale consideration was paid by plaintiff nor any possession was handed over to him and the agreement in question is not a genuine and reliable document. She has further argued that apart from three defendants, their mother Smt. Shanti Devi is also co-sharer for 1/4 share in the subject land and