ORDER :

Chandra Kumar Songara, J.

Instant miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to as 'plaintiff') against the impugned order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer, Jaipur, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the trial Court'), in T.I. Application No.12/2022 (CIS No.113/2022) titled as Shankar Bhawan Nirman Housing Cooperative Society Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Tambi and Others, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract, declaration and injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter to be referred to as 'defendants'). Alongwith the said suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiff, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide its impugned order dated 24.08.2022. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction. Counsel has further submitted that undisputedly, Smt.Asha Devi was the Khatedar tenant and she sold agricultural land to defendant No.1- Rajesh Kumar Tambi vide agreement dated 05.10.2005 and handed over the possession on the same day. The property was in possession of the defendant No.1, which he later-on, sold to the plaintiff through an agreement on 08.03.2015 and handed over the possession to the plaintiff after receiving the full price consideration. The defendant No.1, subsequently, acquired the title by way of registered sale-deed, which has been executed by Smt. Asha Devi in favour of defendant No.1 on 02.09.2015. Therefore, the defendant No.1 cannot challenge the factum of agreement and as per agreement, the entire consideration was paid to the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and possession was also obtained by the plaintiff. Counsel has contended that prima-facie case was in favour of the plaintiff but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and decided the same against the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 had neither challenged the agreement entered into with the plaintiff nor cancelled the agreement. Counsel has further contended that the defendant No.1 had no right to transfer the aforesaid land but he transferred this property by way of a symbolic gift deed executed in favour of his daughter and this transfer was made with an ulterior motive. Counsel has contended that the learned trial Court has illegally held that the plaintiff prima-facie failed to prove as to whether the consideration was paid to the defendant No.1. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saketa Vaksana LLP and another v. Kaukutla Sarala and Others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 773.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the learned trial Court has rightly held that no prima-facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff and also rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. Counse