JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. Issue involved in both the Misc. Appeals is common, hence, same are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. These appeals involve a tussle and short issue with regard to applicability of the principle of “Res-Judicata” on the successive/second temporary injunction application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed under the changed circumstances.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4410/2019, are taken into consideration.

4. Challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant/defendant-Ramsharan Gupta (for short ‘the defendant’) has been made to the impugned order dated 12.6.2019 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘Court below’) in Civil Misc. Application No. 38/2018 by which second/successive application filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance has been allowed and the directions have been issued to the defendant not to raise any construction and also not to make any changes in the suit property, till disposal of the suit.

5. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in the year 2005 alongwith an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which was disposed of by the Court below vide order dated 6.10.2006 and an agreed order was passed with the consent of the defendant that the suit property will not be alienated till disposal of the suit. During currency of the aforesaid, the plaintiff submitted second/successive application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC before the court below stating therein that few days back the defendant started raising construction on the suit property and on 3.7.2018 when the plaintiff asked the defendant not to raise such construction then the defendant refused to stop raising of unauthorized construction over the suit property and threatened the plaintiff to transfer the same. Hence, under the changed circumstances, second/successive application seeking temporary injunction was submitted with the prayer to direct the defendant not to raise any construction, not to make any changes in the property in question and also not to alienate the same to anyone, till disposal of the suit.

6. The defendant submitted his reply and denied the averments of the application and took an objection that earlier the temporary injunction application was decided with the consent of the parties and it was agreed that the defendant would not sell and alienate the property in question to anyone till disposal of the suit. Hence, under these circumstances, the successive application for temporary injunction is barred by the principles of “Res-Judicata” and the same is not maintainable. It was also stated in the reply that no construction is being raised and a false affidavit has been submitted by the plaintiff for which proceedings be initiated against him under section 340 Cr.P.C. and the defendant prayed for rejection of the successive application for grant of temporary injunction.

7. The court below after hearing the arguments of rival parties, found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and also taking into consideration the changed circumstances and the other ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, allowed the second/successive application for temporary injunction by the impugned order directing the defendant not to raise any construction and also not to make any changes in the suit property, till disposal of the suit.

8. The defendant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the court below has preferred instant misc. appeal before this Court.

9. Counsel for the defendant submits that the court below has committed an error in accepting the second/successive application filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunct