SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 1709

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
SANJEET PUROHIT
OMPRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
SATISH KUMAR – Respondent
CMA / 1448 / 2024



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5104]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1448/2024

1. Omprakash S/o Shri Heeraram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o

Chak 3A Chhoti, Near Tiny Tots School, Balaji Dham

Road, Near Shivalik First Colony, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

2. Shanker Lal S/o Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o

Chak 3A Chhoti, Near Tiny Tots School, Balaji Dham

Road, Near Shivalik First Colony, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

----Appellants

Versus

1. Satish Kumar S/o Shri Naresh Kumar, R/o 6-J-32,

Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

2. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal, R/o 31, Third Block,

Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kunal Bishnoi.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

28/01/2026

1. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging

the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Court of Additional

District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar (“Learned Trial Court”),

whereby the application filed by respondents-plaintiffs under

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed and a temporary

injunction was granted in their favour and against the appellants-

defendants.

2. Explaining the background facts, it is stated that a suit for

specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.10.2022

was filed by respondents-plaintiffs on 27.02.2023, wherein a

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 07:55:02 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 09:32:20 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:5104] (2 of 5) [CMA-1448/2024]

decree of permanent injunction was also prayed for. Alongwith the

said suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was

filed, mentioning therein that the defendants had executed an

agreement to sell in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs to the

extent of their share in the land in question (details of which are

mentioned in para no. 2 of the appeal). It was stated in the

application that the plaintiffs had already discharged their

obligations under the said agreement to sell and were ready and

willing to get the sale deed executed in their favour, however, the

defendants have refused for the same. Therefore, the suit

alongwith the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was filed.

3. The said application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was

contested on behalf of the appellants -non applicants, stating

therein that although some amount had been voluntarily deposited

in the bank account of the appellants by the respondents-

plaintiffs, the same had already been paid back. The factum of

execution of sale deed was also disputed on behalf of the

appellants. Despite this, learned trial Court passed the impugned

order dated 19.02.2024 and, by way of temporary injunction,

directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land

in question and further restrained the appellants from selling,

mortgaging or otherwise alienating the land in question.

4. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the appellants

argued that the appellants are rival owners of the land in question

and, therefore, they cannot be restrained to use or deal with their

own land by way of an order of temporary injunction. It was

further contended that in view of reply to the application filed

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, it was well established that the so

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 07:55:02 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 09:32:20 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:5104] (3 of 5) [CMA-1448/2024]

called agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document,

and even the averment of the plaintiff regarding payment of any

amount of consideration in advance was not prima facie

established on record. In these circumstances, the grant of

temporary injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs was

not justified.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants also stated that the

findings of learned Trial Court with regard to issues of prima facie

case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not

justified and, therefore, impugned order dated 19.02.2024 is not

tenable in the eyes of law.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on rec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top