In temporary injunction applications, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss must guide the decision, especially when one party has already made significant investments based on legal documents.

Order :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer) [for short ‘the learned court below’] in T.I. Application No.101/2024, Jagdish Vs. Manoj Kumar Meena & Ors., and to allow the application for temporary injunction filed by him and also to restrain the defendants to maintain the status quo regarding the suit property bearing Khasra No.482/2013.

2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the plaintiff/appellant on 24.06.2024 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents along-with an application for temporary injunction stating that the land bearing Khasra No.482/2013 measuring 0.4006 hectare and the other land is in his ownership as it is in his tenancy. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is residing with his joint family. The defendant No.1 is grandson of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is son of the plaintiff. In December 2019, the plaintiff and his family decided to start a Petrol Pump in his land and the plaintiff discussed about that with the defendant No.1, who suggested that Rambabu Gupta and Ramavtar Sharma having experience for installing the Petrol Pump, therefore, the defendant No.1 gave suggestion to the plaintiff that Rambabu Gupta and Ramavtar Sharma will help for installing the Petrol Pump but some consideration will be charged by them. In such circumstances a Power of Attorney dated 09.01.2020 was executed at 11^th hour, because everything was done in hurry and even the plaintiff had no occasion to find out this fact that what document was being executed by the plaintiff. In such circumstances by way of misrepresentation, the defendant No.4 and her husband got the gift deed dated 09.01.2020, though the said gift deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1 but the plaintiff was never interested to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendant No.1 because the other sons and grandsons are also residing with the plaintiff, therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff for executing the alleged gift deed dated 09.01.2020. Even on the basis of above gift deed and by way of misrepresentation, the defendant No.4, her husband Akshay Gupta, Rambabu Gupta and Ramavtar Sharma, an order for conversion dated 01.06.2020 was also passed by the Jaipur Development Authority, though the said order dated 01.06.2020 was passed in the name of defendant No.1 but again in an illegal manner. Above persons namely; Akshay gupta, Rambabu Gupta and Ramavtar Sharma committed conspiracy and they obtained a consent letter which was not bearing any date. The said consent letter was allegedly executed by the defendant No.1 whereby it was requested that the patta of the suit land should be issued in the name of the defendants No.1 and 4 but subsequently the said consent letter was again changed and another consent letter dated 22.03.2023 was obtained from the defendant No.1, whereby it was requested that the lease deed regarding suit land should be issued in the name of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3, but since above persons made plan to grab the land of the plaintiff. Therefore, despite specific consent letter dated 22.03.2023, lease deed dated 22.03.2023 was issued by the Jaipur Development Authority only in the name of defendant No.3, whereas according to the consent letter d