The court emphasized the discretionary and equitable nature of temporary injunctions, considering the balance of convenience and limited jurisdiction to interfere with trial court orders.

ORDER

1. The defect, as pointed out by the registry in SBCMA No.1083/2022, is dispensed with.

2. Since in all four appeals, the impugned order dated 03.02.2022 is common and parties are common, hence with the consent of learned for all parties, all appeals have been heard together and would stand disposed of by this common order.

3. Appellant-plaintiff-Rajesh Sharma has filed two applications for Temporary Injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. First application No.70/2016 has been partially allowed vide order dated 03.02.2022, hence the plaintiff has challenged the order dated 03.02.2022 by way of filing appeal No.940/2022 to the extent of declining the temporary injunction, whereas against the grant of Temporary Injunction, the defendant No.1/1 and 2 have filed appeal No.1083/2022 and defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 have filed appeal No. 997/2022.

4. Second application for Temporary Injunction No.4/2022 has been dismissed vide separate order dated 03.02.2022 and their against, appellant-plaintiff has filed appeal No.937/2022.

5. It appears from the record that appellant-plaintiff-Rajesh Sharma has instituted a civil suit for possession, partition, declaration, rendition of account and mandatory as also prohibitory injunction against his father, mother, brothers and sister. The plaintiff has relied upon one partition deed dated 13.06.1997 alleged to be executed between him and his father and through this partition deed, plaintiff claims his share in the properties mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint. The plaintiff, by giving reference of the partnership firm M/s Jaipur Murti Museum, claims that the business of partnership firm was joint and out of firm income, the properties mentioned in para No.5 were purchased. In para No.7, plaintiff referred about the deposits in the bank account through FDR & other savings, which were alleged to be from the income of the partnership firm and for tax purposes. The plaintiff has also referred about one oral partition and the document of family settlement dated 03.06.2014 whereby and whereunder movable and immovable properties were agreed to be divided among the family members. Plaintiff claims that through this family settlement, the properties mentioned in para No.9 were agreed to be given in his share. Plaintiff submits that the family settlement dated 03.06.2014 was partially acted upon but has not been acted for transferring the properties to the plaintiff and later on defendants declined the family settlement, hence the present suit has been filed on or near about in the month of October, 2016.

6. By perusal of plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has prayed for multiple reliefs. Alongwith plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application for Temporary Injunction being No.70/2016. During pendency of his first application for Temporary Injunction, plaintiff filed second application for Temporary Injunction being No.4/2022. In the application for Temporary Injunction, plaintiff has prayed for to grant Temporary Injunction in relation to the properties mentioned in para Nos. 2 (1) and (2) and 6 (1) to (10) of the application (para 1 & 5 of the plaint). In second application for Temporary Injunction, plaintiff mainly prayed to restrain the defendants from demolishing and raising any construction in the property Municipal No.1993/15 Khunteto Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur and for maintaining status quo.

7. Defendants have filed reply to both applications for Temporary Injunction and more or less their stand is similar. According to defendants, plaintiff individually did not get any share in the properties under the partition deed dated 13.06.1997 as it was a partition among the father’s family. The firm, Jaipur Murti Museum has been dissolved through dissolution deed dated 05.04.2008, since thereafter, no jointness of business is there in the family. One another firm namely, Jaipur Murti Palace was also there. According to defendants, the document of family settlement da