Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishna Lal Alias Kishan Lal vs Smt. Diksha Setia (2026:Rj-Jd:5478) on 28 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5478]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2608/2025
Krishna Lal Alias Kishan Lal S/o Lal Chand, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Ward No 13 House No 236, 237 A Block Padampur
District Sri Ganganagar
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Diksha Setia W/o Late Shri Deepak Khurana,
Resdient Of Ward No 1 Bhawani Chowk Suratgarh District
Sriganganagar
2. Praveen Kumar S/o Sheeshpal Singh Tanwar, Resdient Of
Ward No 19 Brahmin Colony Gali No 1 Near Basanti
Chowk Sriganganagar
3. Pradeep Singh S/o Jeevraj Siingh, Resdient Of Chak No
25 Stg Pilibanga District Hanumangarh
4. Kamal Kishore Bhati S/o Brijmohan Bhati, Resdient Of
Alakh Sagar Well Bhati House Bikaner
5. Municipal Council, Padampur Through Exeutive Officer
Municipality Padampur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Narendra Thanvi
Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order Reportable 28/01/2026
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 (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (2 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] 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 Padapur, 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.
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (3 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025]
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 (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (4 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] executed on 04.10.2023, however, the present suit has been preferred after inordinate and unexplained delay just to create pressure upon respondent No.1. Based on the said averments, respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
4. Learned trial Court while considering the pleadings of the parties and taking into account documents available on record including the documents pertaining to criminal proceedings as well as orders passed by the competent revenue Court, has observed that the entire claim of the plaintiff is based upon a Will dated 04.01.2021 which, prima facie does not appear to be valid one. Therefore, the appellant-plaintiff failed to establish issue of prima facie case.
4.1 Learned trial Court further observed that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are owners of the land in question by virtue of registered sale deed dated 04.10.2023 and therefore, balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. It is further observed that if, any temporary injunction is issued, same will cause irreparable injury to the bonafide purchasers, rather than the plaintiff. In view of the said observations, issue of balance of convenience as well as irreparable injury was also decided against the plaintiff. Based on the said observations, learned trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2025 dismissed the application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
5. Challenging said order dated 07.08.2025, learned Senior counsel Mr. R.K. Thanvi argued that order impugned passed by learned trial Court is ex facie erroneous and unjustified as the issue of irreparable injury as well as balance of convenience has (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (5 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] not been decided independently and in detail by learned trial Court but same has been decided merely on the basis of findings recorded with regard to issue of prima facie case. 5.1 It is contended that error apparent on the face of record is committed by learned trial Court while relying upon final report submitted by Investigating Agency as the documents of criminal case cannot be relied upon in civil proceedings. So also the approach of learned trial Court in placing reliance upon order passed by Tehsildar in refusing to record name of the plaintiff on the basis of Will is also not justified as the said order has already been challenged by plaintiff in an appeal.
5.2 Learned Senior counsel argued that while deciding the issue of prima facie case, learned trial Court has recorded findings on the merits of the case which is not permissible at the stage of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. In support of his submissions, counsel has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Nathi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 2016 (3) RLW 2587
(ii) Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad : AIR 2009 SC 2463
(iii) Tara Vati Vs. UCO Bank : 2022 (4) CCC 091 (H.P.)
6. Arguing on behalf of the respondents, counsel Mr. J.S. Bhaleria stated that pleadings of the parties as well as material available on record was duly considered by learned trial Court while deciding issue of prima facie case. Counsel for the respondent stated that objection raised by the appellant that balance of convenience and irreparable injury was not rightly (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (6 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] considered, is wholly misconceived as it is a settled position of law that where issue of prima facie case itself has not been established by appellant-plaintiff, no relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC can be granted.
6.1 Counsel for the respondents further stated that there is no legal bar in taking into account the document relating to criminal case / revenue case at the stage of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as the evidentiary value of document cannot be considered at the stage of consideration of a prima facie case. 6.2 Counsel for the respondents also stated that entire case of the appellant is based upon so called Will dated 04.01.2021 which apparently seems to be forged one and the same is further fortified in view of the fact that after detailed investigation, the police authorities while finding the Will to be prima facie forged one, has filed challan against appellant-plaintiff. 6.3 Counsel stated that the land has been purchased by respondent Nos.2 to 4 by way of registered sale deed and they being bonafide purchasers cannot be deprived of their rights to enjoy property purchased through registered sale deed. In support of their contentions, counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Ashok Kumar Vs. Vimal Kumar & Ors. : 2014 Supreme (Raj) 667
(ii) Hukam Singh Vs. Khubdan and Ors. : 2019 Supreme (Raj) 2459
(iii) Pyarelal Vs. Sunil Kumar : 2019 AIR (Raj) 168
(iv) Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR Vs. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. : AIR online 2025 SC 592 (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (7 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025]
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. While relying upon judgments cited at the bar, learned Senior counsel argued that while deciding issue of prima facie learned trial Court has recorded the findings on merits regarding validity of Will, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Further, findings of learned trial Court are based upon the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Agency in relation to FIR bearing No. 497/2022, whereas law is well settled that documents relating to Criminal Courts are not admissible in civil trial.
8.1 This Court is unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that issue of prima facie case has been decided solely on the basis of the conclusion drawn in the criminal investigation / on the basis of challan. A bare reading of the judgment impugned shows that learned trial Court has taken into account the pleadings of the parties as well as all other material available on record, including but not limited to the final report / challan filed by the investigating agency, but also taking into account the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by Tehsildar rejecting the application of appellant - plaintiff regarding the name of defendant Diksha Setia, the delay in filing the civil suit, so also the factum of a registered sale deed already been executed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
8.2 A bare reading of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 clearly shows that at this stage, Civil Court may grant an order of temporary injunction, if the circumstances requiring the same is proved by affidavit or otherwise. Thus, while deciding the said application, Civil Court can very well place reliance upon the affidavit so also (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (8 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] material placed before it which may also include the documents pertaining to criminal investigation / case or the documents pertaining to revenue records or orders passed by the revenue Courts regarding the same property.
8.3 At the stage of consideration of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the trial court is required to undertake only a tentative and prima facie assessment of the material placed before it, without embarking upon a final adjudication of rights. In that limited context, the court is competent to consider documents arising out of parallel proceedings, including those relating to criminal cases or revenue proceedings concerning the same property, for the purpose of forming a prima facie opinion as to possession, nature of dispute, and the existence of an imminent threat warranting interim protection. Although it is well settled that documents or findings in criminal proceedings are not conclusive or binding in civil proceedings, having regard to the distinct scope and standard of proof applicable to each, such material nevertheless carries corroborative and persuasive value and may be looked into to appreciate the overall factual matrix at the interlocutory stage. It is also settled position of law that revenue entries, though not documents of title, are relevant indicators of possession and can be considered at the injunction stage. Therefore, the trial court, while deciding an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, may take into account revenue records and or material of criminal proceedings only for the limited purpose of forming a prima facie view, without allowing such material to influence or prejudge the final adjudication of civil rights, which must await a full-fledged trial in accordance with law, (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (9 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] keeping in view the settled parameters of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. 8.4 The judgments cited on behalf of the appellant relate to the applicability, admissibility, and reliability of documents pertaining to criminal investigation/criminal trial in a trial of civil suit. However, the same does not specifically pertain to the stage of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. It is also a settled position of law that the admissibility of a document in evidence cannot be decided at the stage of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, nor a document can be ignored upon an objection regarding its inadmissibility in evidence at that stage for the purpose of deciding the issue of prima facie case. (refer to judgment dated 19.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani Vs. Kakasaheb Laxman Gorde, reported in 2007 SCCOnline Bom
966). Therefore, the said judgment passed in the case of Nathi Devi (supra), Seth Ram Dayal Jat (supra) which are not relating to the stage of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further objected the finding of learned trial Court on the ground that the same is based upon the fact that the Tehsildar, vide its order dated 21.10.2022, has rejected the application of plaintiff Krishna Lal @ Kishan Lal to record his name in revenue records merely on the basis of Will, whereas said order has already been challenged in appeal. 9.1 Countering the said submission, learned counsel for the respondent has apprised this Court that even the appeal preferred by the plaintiff - Krishna Lal @ Kishan Lal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 challenging the order dated (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (10 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] 21.10.2022 has already been dismissed and the said order dated 21.10.2022 has been upheld.
9.2 In this view of the matter, the fact that the plaintiff's claim regarding his title over the land on the sole basis of the so-called Will dated 4.1.2021 has been rejected by two revenue Courts of competent jurisdiction and said orders relating to the same subject matter i.e. property as well as Will in question, cannot be ignored at the stage of deciding the issue of prima facie case. 9.3 Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn attention of this Court to the copy of the so-called Will relied upon by the appellant and pointed out that the stamp paper over which the Will was executed was purchased for execution of the agreement and even a bare look at the document of Will shows that signatures of the executant, Mr. Deepak Khurana, appears below the signatures of the witnesses at the bottom of the stamp paper. Although, a conclusive finding regarding the genuineness and validity of the Will can be recorded based upon evidences to be adduced by both the parties, yet the said aspect carries its own limited weight while forming prima facie opinion regarding claim of the appellant based on said Will.
9.4 Learned counsel for the respondents also stated that in spite of the fact that the defendant was legally wedded wife of deceased
- Late Shri Deepak Khurana, yet the Will in question nowhere mentions anything regarding his wife. The said unusual omission to mention the existence of wife in Will also give rise to serious doubt, whether the Will was executed with the free will of the testator. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (11 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] "Gurdial Singh Vs. Jagir Kaur", reported in AIR Online 2025 SC 592. The relevant para 19 is quoted below:-
"19. Appellant's case was not only to propound the Will in his favour but even to deny the very status of 1st respondent as Maya Singh's wife. When one reads the contents of the Will, appellant's stand is stark and palpable in its tenor and purport. The Will is a cryptic one where Maya Singh bequests his properties to his nephew i.e. the appellant, as the latter was taking care of him. However, the Will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, i.e. the 1st respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance. Evidence on record shows 1st respondent was residing with Maya Singh till the latter's death. Nothing has come on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter. As per the appellant, she was nominated by Maya Singh and was entitled to receive his pension which demonstrates the testator's conduct in accepting 1st respondent as his lawfully wedded wife. Further, the Trial Court erroneously observed that non - performance of last rites of Maya Singh by 1st respondent hinted at sour relations between the couple. Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed by Male Sapinda relations. Given this practice, 1st respondent not performing last rites could not be treated as a contra indicator of indifferent relationship with her husband during the latter's lifetime. In this backdrop, it cannot be said Maya Singh had during his lifetime, denied his marriage with 1st respondent or admitted that their relation was strained, so as to prompt him to erase her very existence in the Will. Such erasure of marital status is the tell-tale insignia of the propounder and not the testator himself. A cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the Will, gives rise to serious doubt that the (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (12 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] Will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the 'free will' of the testator."
10. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the issue of balance of convenience as well as irreparable injury has not been decided by learned Trial Court independently and in detail also appears to be misconceived. A perusal of the order impugned shows after deciding the issue of prima facie case against the appellant/plaintiff, learned trial Court has observed that since the Will in question is not prima facie found to be genuine and a registered sale deed has already been executed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 two years prior to the filing of the suit, therefore, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff and the same will caused irreparable injury to the bonafide purchasers rather than the plaintiff. This Court thus, finds that learned trial Court has decided the issue of balance of convenience as well as irreparable injury independently. Even otherwise, the law is well settled that for succeeding in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the establishment of prima facie case is sine quo non and once said issue is decided against the appellant - plaintiff, the order cannot be interfered merely on the ground that the issue of balance of convenience and irreparable injury was not decided in great detail. Once it is held that the issues of balance of convenience so also irreparable injury are decided independently, the judgment relied upon by the appellant passed in the case of Tara Bati (supra) losts its application upon the facts of the present case.
11. This Court finds that the findings recorded and conclusions drawn by learned trial Court are very much justified and based (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (13 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] upon the overall and holistic appreciation of material available on record. Reference of the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Hukum Singh (supra) and Pyarelal (supra) are relevant in this regard wherein it is held that once the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has refused to grant the temporary injunction and then, unless the discretion is shown to be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, then interference of the Appellate Court is not at all called for. Relevant part of the said judgment of Hukum Singh (supra) is quoted below:-
"4. Law is trite that grant or refusal of temporary injunction is within sole discretion of the Court of first instance and normally appellate Courts are not expected to interfere with the discretionary order of trial Court. The appellate Court can only interfere with if it is found that the order is perverse or passed dehors the province of law governing grant or refusal of temporary injunction. Reliance in this behalf can be profitably made to a celebrated decision of this Court in Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Jang Bahadur [AIR 1977 (Raj.) 196], wherein Court has held :
"I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant- petitioner. The order refusing temporary injunction is of a discretionary character. Ordinarily Court of appeal will not interfere with the exercise of discretion passed by the trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. The interference with the discretionary order, however, may be justified if the lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (14 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant records.
In the light of the above observations, I have now to see whether it was open to the learned District Judge to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court. It is well settled that the grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary order and the decision of the first Court could not be easily interfered with by the appellate Court vide Musa v. Badri Prasad, ILR (1953) 3 Raj 257. The mere possibility of the appellate Court coming to a different conclusion on the same facts and evidence will also not justify interference vide Wazir Sundar Singh v. Mst. Farida Khanam, AIR 1920 PC
132. Another well established principle while disposing of the application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. is that when the Court while dealing with the case forgrant of temporary injunction decides the question of prima facie case, it should apply its judicial mind to the materials which are placed on the record and if it does not do so then it commits illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction and in that case the High Court is competent to interfere in revision in such a case vide Musa v. Badri Prasad (supra). The view taken in Musa v. Badri Prasad (supra) has been followed by Kan Singh J. in Girdhari Lal v. Mahadevi Sharma, AIR 1958 Raj 237. It has been held in this case that the appellate Court should be slow in upsetting a decision of a trial Court in a matter relating to grant of temporary injunction unless the decision of the trial Court is arbitrary, perverse or is not based on sound legal principles. It has been further observed in that case that when the appellate Court does not apply its judicial mind on all the materials brought on the record then in that (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (15 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] case the approach of an Appellate Court would be wrong and contrary to the well established principles laid down by the High Court, more so when the appellate Court does not deal with the reasoning that has prevailed with the trial Court and further when it does not apply its judicial mind on the materials placed on the record."
5. Later on, Supreme Court has also examined the powers of appellate Court in relation to appeals against order of granting or refusing injunctions. Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. [1990 (Supp) SCC 727], has observed that such appeal cannot be considered as akin to regular first appeal as it is an appeal on principles. While dilating on the powers of appellate Court, the Court held:-
"In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (16 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion."
"6. In view of the fact that learned trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, while rejecting prayer for temporary injunction, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out."
Relevant part of the said judgment of Pyarelal (supra) is quoted below:-
"4. There remains no quarrel that grant or refusal of temporary injunction is within the sole discretion of the Court of first instance and normally appellate Court is not expected to substitute its view. The appellant Court can very well interfere with the order passed by learned trial Court if it comes to the conclusion that the order impugned is perverse or dehors the sound legal principles governing the province of temporary injunction.
5. This Court in case of Vimla Devi Vs. Jang Bahadur [AIR 1977(Raj.) 196] has examined the powers of appellate Court to interfere with the discretionary order in the matter of grant of temporary injunction and observed:
"I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant-petitioner. The order refusing temporary injunction is of a discretionary character. Ordinarily Court of appeal will not interfere with the exercise of discretion passed by the trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. The interference with the discretionary order, however, may be justified if the lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant records."
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (17 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] In the light of the above observations, I have now to see whether it was open to the learned District Judge to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court. It is well settled that the grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary order and the decision of the first Court could not be easily interfered with by the appellate Court vide Musa v.Badri Prasad, ILR (1953) 3 Raj 257. The mere possibility of the appellate Court coming to a different conclusion on the same facts and evidence will also not justify interference vide Wazir SundarSingh v. Mst. Farida Khanam, AIR 1920 PC 132.Another well established principle while disposing of the application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C.
is that when the Court while dealing with the case for grant of temporary injunction decides the question of prima facie case, it should apply its judicial mind to the materials which are placed on the record and if it does not do so then it commits illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction and in that case the High Court is competent to interfere in revision in such a case vide Musa v. Badri Prasad (supra). The view taken in Musa v.
Badri Prasad (supra) has been followed by Kan Singh J. in Girdhari Lal v. Mahadevi Sharma, AIR 1958 Raj 237. It has been held in this case that the appellate Court should be slow in upsetting a decision of a trial Court in a matter relating to grant of temporary injunction unless the decision of the trial Court is arbitrary, perverse or is not based on sound legal principles. It has been further observed in that case that when the appellate Court does not apply its judicial mind on all the materials brought on the record then in that case the approach of an (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (18 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] Appellate Court would be wrong and contrary to the well established principles laid down by the High Court, more so when the appellate Court does not deal with the reasoning that has prevailed with the trial Court and further when it does not apply its judicial mind on the materials placed on the record.
6. "In a subsequent judgment, the Supreme Court in case of Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. [1990 (Supp) SCC 727]observed that appeal against grant or refusal of temporary injunction is appeal on principle. While dilating on the powers of appellate Court, the Court held:
"In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a (Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (19 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion.
7. "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, in my opinion, learned trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously. Therefore, I feel disinclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by learned trial Court.
8. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby rejected."
12. In view of the discussions above, it is clear that the entire claim of the appellant-plaintiff is based on a Will dated 04.01.2022 on the basis of which it is alleged that son Deepak Khurana has transferred his rights and title in the property to his father. An application submitted by the appellant's father for recording his name in the revenue records on the basis of the Will has already been rejected by two revenue courts of competent jurisdiction. Furthermore, in the FIR filed by the widow of Late Shri Deepak Khurana alleging the Will to be forged / fabricated one, challan has been filed against the accused persons including the appellant Krishna Lal. The learned trial Court while considering entire material available on record, recorded specific findings only to the extent of a prima facie case but also regarding balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Said findings cannot be said to be perverse so as to call for interference by this Court. In view of the law settled, these findings would not have any impact on the main trial as the issues in trial will ultimately be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties.
13. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any error or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court.
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5478] (20 of 20) [CMA-2608/2025] Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
14. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 10-praveen-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:38:16 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:32:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)