JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Ankit Srivastava and Sri R.B.S. Rathaur learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. No one appears on behalf of respondent no.3 despite service of notice.

3. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Hardoi in Civil Suit No.23 of 2023 (Saurabh Gupta vs. Smt. Archna Gupta and others) by which the injunction application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. (application no.13(g) has been rejected.

4. The crux of the matter is that the appellant filed a Civil Suit No.23 of 2023, impleading the respondents as defendants, for a declaration that he is the co-sharer of 1/4th part of the property in dispute as the property belongs to joint family property because it was purchased by the father of the appellant, who is also the husband of respondent no.1 in the name of respondent no.1. In the suit above, the specific plea was taken that respondent no.1 was the house maker and did not have any independent source of income. Through a sale deed dated 20.10.1986, the appellant's father purchased the property in dispute from Ram Ratan Gupta.