The main legal point established is that the trial court must consider the material documents and make reasoned decisions when dealing with temporary injunction applications.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff') against the order dated 10.3.2022 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short, 'the defendants') for cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.5.2012, declaration and permanent injunction. He also filed an application for temporary injunction. The respondents-defendants (for short, 'the defendants') filed reply thereto. The trial court vide its order dated 10.3.2022 has dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the order dated 10.3.2022 passed by the trial court is based on non consideration of the material documents. He further submits that from the affidavit and documents produced by the plaintiff, he was able to make out a strong prima-facie case for granting T.I. in his favour, but without considering the material available on record, the court below dismissed the temporary injunction application. He further submits that on the one hand, it has been observed by the trial court that the documents said to be forgedly prepared by the non applicant-defendant no.1, while keeping the plaintiff in fallacy, is a matter of evidence and on the other hand the temporary injunction application has been dismissed. Thus, contradictory observations have been made by the trial court. Therefore, the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the court below is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the same and submits that no prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss being made out in favour of the plaintiff-applicant, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction, hence no interference therewith is required by this Court.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. The trial court while dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC with regard to prima-facie case observed as under:-

7. In the case of Smt. Vimla Devi versus Jang Bahadur reported in RLW 1977 page 327, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:

"Another well established principle while disposing of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that when the Court while dealing with the case for grant of temporary injunction decides the question of prima facie case, it should apply its judicial mind to the materials which are placed on the record and if it does not do so, then it commits illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction and in that case, the High Court is competent to interfere.

8. In the case of Cosmos Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) Versus Laxman Singh & Ors. reported in 2010 (3) RLW 2761 (Raj.), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that when the Trial Court not considered the documents placed before it, the order passed is a cryptic order, and the same can be termed as non-speaking order.

9. In the case of Vellakutty Versus Karthyavani reported in AIR 1968 Kerala 179, the Kerala High Court has held as under:

"Every piece of evidence produced by either party has to be taken into consideration in deciding the existence of a prima facie case so justify issuance of a temporary injunction".

10. In the case of Vadivel Mudaliar and another Versus Pachianna Gounder reported in AIR 1974 Madras 87, the Madras High Court has observed as under:-

"In the matter of granting temporary injunction it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration the affidavits and the relevant documents before it records a finding. Taking into consideration the documents does not mean merely referring to the same in the judgment; but there must be some discussion about them before any conclusion is arrived at. Unfortunately, the Courts below have not adverte