Hon'ble PATHAK, J.-These two misc. appeals have been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Misc. Application no.56/2009 thereby allowing the application of respondents under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that plaintiff respondent Bhagwati Singh filed a suit for injunction in the trial court on the basis that the suit property is a joint family undivided property.

3. It was averred that no relief was being claimed against the defendant respondents, namely; Smt. Jayshree Devi and Smt. Devendra Kumari in the suit. M/s. Cosmos Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was one of the defendants who claims that the disputed property was purchased by it from plaintiff-respondent no.2 Bhagwati Singh and defendant-respondent Nos. 3 and 4. A temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed along with the suit.

4. Reply to the application was filed by the appellant.

5. The learned trial court vide impugned order passed injunction restraining the appellant from entering in the suit premises and further from making any construction on the suit property so that nature of the suit property is not changed. Against the above order, present appeal was filed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents.

7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the instant case the property is joint family property, therefore, all the family members have their shares in the property. It is also contended that the plaintiff-appellant Bhawati Singh and respondent nos. 3 and 4 have sold their shares to M/s Cosmos Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. under registered sale-deeds, therefore, appellant M/s Cosmos Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to make construction on the purchased property. It is contended that the learned trial court without considering prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury has passed order .jn a mandatory form restraining the appellant for their entering and also for making construction on the disputed property without assigning reasons. It has also been contended that the trial court has only stated facts while disposing of the injunction application and at page 7 of the impugned order only observations have been made to the effect that during the course of trial the matter relating to adoption of Bhagwati Singh is to be decided, therefore, the appellants herein were required to be restrained by passing impugned order. It is contended that the material placed before the trial court was not at all discussed, therefore, the order requires to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, it has been contended that appellant Bhagwati Singh filed a suit earlier for partition and in that suit the question of adoption was considered and injunction application moved in the suit was dismissed, therefore, the appellants herein are not entitled to maintain the suit. It is further contended that subsequent suits filed by Bhagwati Singh and, M/s Cosmos Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. were not maintainable as Bhagwati Singh had no right in the suit property as he went in adoption and appellant M/s Cosmos Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. alleges to have purchased the disputed property from Bhagwati Singh who was having no right in the property. According to the learned counsel, the suits filed before the trial court were liable to be dismissed.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me.

10. In the present matter, what appears from the reading of the impugned order is that the trial court has not discussed the material available on record and only stated the facts of the case and at page 7 in para 7 observations have been made in relation to adoption of plaintiff Bhagwati Singh and since Bhagwati Singh's matter of adoption was required to be considered during the course of trial, therefore, passed order without discussing balance of