The Court's discretion in granting or refusing injunction is within its sole jurisdiction, and the appellate Court should not interfere unless the discretion exercised by the Court below was arbitrary, patently illegal, or beyond jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant Smt. Purushottam Devi assailing the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2022 (N.C.V. No. 215/2021) whereby the learned Court below allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The learned Court below after considering the rival submissions has recorded an affirmative finding that respondent-plaintiff has proved the existence of a prima-facie case in his favour and further, he has been able to prove two other necessary ingredients required for grant of temporary injunction namely balance of convenience and irreparable loss. With this conclusion, the learned Court below has granted indulgence to the respondent-plaintiff and has passed the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds in this appeal, which are reproduced as under:

(i) That the learned trial court has gravelly erred in law as well as in facts in passing the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 against the appellant and in allowing the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs. It is most respectfully submitted that learned trial court has failed to appreciate and consider the legal principles in deciding the temporary injunction application. The order impugned being passed in violation of settled legal principles could not sustain. Hence, on this count the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That at the very outset, it may be submitted that the respondents/plaintiff's have come up with a specific case before the learned trial court in their suit that Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma has executed alleged Will dated 14.02.2017 in their favour and they claimed declaration on the basis of said Will against the humble appellant and other defendants. Further relief of injunction has also been claimed by the plaintiffs. In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that admittedly, the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief of declaration regarding the Will executed by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma in favour of his wife the present appellant dated 15.01.2020. It was submitted before the learned trial court that there were no circumstances or reasons ever arose which can compel Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma to bequeathed his entire properties in favour of plaintiffs by executing the alleged Will dated 14.02.2017. A bare perusal of alleged Will itself reveals that same does not contain any whisper about the reason for not giving anything to rest of the family members of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma. The plaintiffs are indisputably grandsons of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma and the entire family of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma consists of wife, sons and daughter. There is nothing in said Will about the reasons for debarring the wife, sons and daughter by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma. This fact in particular casts huge and serious doubt upon the alleged Will dated 14.02.2017 and apparently the conduct of plaintiffs and proceedings initiated against them during the lifetime of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma itself shows that in no manner Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma can execute said Will in favour of plaintiffs. The learned Court below has completely overlooked this very aspect of the matter while passing the order impugned dated 25.02.2022 and restraining the humble appellant to enter and enjoy the suit property. Until and unless the plaintiffs does not succeeds in their claim the Will dated 15.01.2020 could not be doubted for any reasons and the Will of plaintiffs does not gain that much confidence using which the appellant can be restrained from entering in the suit property. The order impugned dated 25.02.2022 stands vitiated on this count hence, same deserves to be quashed and set aside.