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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.