The duty of the trial Court to consider all relevant principles of law and the principles governing the grant of temporary injunction restraining alienation were the central legal points established in the judgment.

ORDER :

1. Appellant/plaintiff has filed this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.9.2020 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Civil Suit No.1-A/2019, whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that appellant/plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the respondents/defendants seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. After hearing both the parties, trial Court has rejected the application by passing impugned order. Hence appellant has filed this miscellaneous appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that trial Court has erred in not considering that appellant has executed the power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 and on that basis they have purchased the suit property but after obtaining the power of attorney, respondent No.1 has misused it and he has alienated the suit property to his family members-respondents No.2 to 5. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is also in favour of the appellant. The impugned order passed by the court below is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. Hence he has prayed that impugned order be set aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff be allowed and temporary injunction be issued against the respondents.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that impugned order passed by the court below is just and proper and the trial Court has passed detailed order after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference is required.

5. Both the parties are heard at length and perused all the relevant documents filed by the parties.

6. After perusal of the record filed by both the parties, it appears that admittedly appellant/plaintiff along with the respondent No.6/defendant Manoharlal jointly purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No.1273/2 area 0.186 Aare and Survey No.1263/2 Rakba 0.140 Aare through registered sale deeds in the year 1991 and they have executed power of attorney in favour of the respondent/defendant No.1 Laxminarayan, who has sold the suit land along with other land to the various purchasers on the basis of said power of attorney.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent No.1 has misused the liberty given to him and he has sold out certain land to his own wife, daughter and other relatives.

8. In reply, contention of respondent No.1 is that he has sold out the suit property as per the instructions of petitioner in exercise of the power given to him through registered power of attorney. It appears that there is a dispute between both the parties regarding the account of money of the sold property. Although petitioner and respondent No.6 are the registered owner of the suit property and they did not want to continue the respondent No.1 as their power of attorney. It is also alleged that despite of the instructions given by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is regularly alienating and creating third party right over the suit property.

9. It is true that the civil court has power to issue temporary injunction restraining an attemptted alienation of suit property by either party. Merely because Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the interest of the complaining party by providing that an alienation lis pendens shall be subject to the result of the suit but that does not mean that civil court does not have power to issue an injunction. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Devi Prasad Vs. Babulal reported in 1991 MPLJ 480 has held as under:-

“10. In the opinion of this Court, the matter as to the grant of a temporary injunction restrain