The appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary order of a trial court refusing a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, unless such discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, and it is permissible to consider parallel proceedings for prima facie assessment.

Order

Reportable

1. The present misc. appeal is preferred challenging order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (“learned trial Court”) rejecting application of appellant-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of appellant-plaintiff.

2. Facts germane to present misc. appeal are that, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.10.2023, also seeking decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, along with application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC mentioning therein that in a land measuring 36 Bighas and 14 Biswas situated at Chak 20 BB Second, Tehsil Padampur, his son Deepak Khurana was having ¼ share. Apart from that, son Deepak Khurana was having ½ share in three residential plots.

2.1 It is stated that plaintiff’s son Deepak Khurana executed a notarised Will on 04.01.2021, before he committed suicide on 17.08.2021. It is stated that by virtue of said Will, plaintiff became owner of the property/share of late Deepak Khurana. However, inspite of the fact that proceedings pertaining to revenue entries to be made on the basis of Will dated 04.01.2021 was pending consideration before Tehsildar, Padampur, respondent No.1 – Smt. Diksha Setia - widow of late Deepak Khurana had got the land mutated in her favour on 27.10.2022 and has sold her share to respondent Nos.2 to 4 by executing a registered sale deed dated 04.10.2023.

2.2 It is further stated that based on the Will so executed by his son - Late Deepak Khurana, respondent No.1 had no right or title in the property in question, however, she has sold a part of the land and is also attempting to get the remaining part of the land/property recorded in her name. On the basis of said averments, prayer for temporary injunction was being made.

3. Said application was contested on behalf of respondent No.1 stating therein that plaintiff as well as brother of her late husband Ashish had some blank stamp papers of her husband and same have been misused by plaintiff and a forged and fabricated Will has been executed. It is averred that the Will so relied upon by plainitiff, on the face of it seems to be suspicious one as the signatures of executor is apparently found below the signatures of the witnesses and the Will itself nowhere contains any mention about wife of late Deepak Khurana.

3.1 It was stated that late Deepak Khurana, being a young man of 27 years, was not suffering from any disease, and that relations between husband and wife were cordial, therefore, there could have been no circumstance or reason for him to execute a Will in favor of his father, thereby depriving the wife of her rightful share in the property.

3.2 It was further stated that after coming to know about the said Will, FIR No.497/22 was registered against the plaintiff, wherein after detailed investigation, the Will has been prima facie found to be forged one and challan has been filed against the plaintiff and other accused persons. In connection with the said FIR, the accused persons were arrested and later on, enlarged on bail.

3.3 It is also stated that application preferred on behalf of plaintiff for entering his name in the revenue record on the basis of Will was also rejected by Tehsildar and name of defendant No.1 – Smt. Diksha Setia was recorded as legal representative of late Deepak Khurana in the revenue record. It is stated that name of Smt. Diksha was already recorded and sale deed in question was executed on 04