Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers and before filing the suit, the defendant No.1 had already sold the schedule land in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the suit.

NC: 2025:KHC:52414 HC-KAR

5. The plaintiff while filing the suit has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for grant of exparte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making alienation of the suit schedule properties, which was on 25.04.2019 and subsequently, the said order was confirmed on 17.08.2023. It was ordered by the trial Court while granting an order of temporary injunction that the order of temporary injunction has been in force for a period of six months from the date of order and further extension of temporary injunction order will be depending on the conduct of the case by the plaintiff expeditiously. Thereafter, the matter came to be posted on 30.02.2024. In the meantime, on 21.02.2024 the plaintiff has filed an application seeking extension of the temporary injunction, but it was dismissed and it is ordered that the order of temporary injunction dated 17.08.2023 stands vacated on 17.02.2024.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:52414 HC-KAR convenience and in turn, if such an order of temporary injunction is granted, then the defendants would be put into loss and injury. Therefore considering all the aspects, the trial Court has rightly passed the order on the applications.

10. Further submitted that the defendant No.1 already sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 19.01.2019 before filing the suit by the plaintiff and an exparte order of temporary injunction was granted on 25.04.2019, but before that the defendant No.1 sold the said property to the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, considering all these aspects, it is contended that the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case or balance of convenience. Hence, justified the order passed by the trial court and prays to dismiss the appeal.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:52414 HC-KAR

14. Initially on the date of filing of the suit on 25.04.2019, the trial Court has passed an exparte order of temporary injunction. Later on, it was after contest of the said application the trial Court has passed an exparte order of temporary injunction on 17.08.2023. The trial court in exercise of its discretion has granted an order of temporary injunction for a period of six months subject to the condition that expeditiously conducting the trial by the plaintiff. The said period of six months period was lapsed on 17.02.2024. While granting the order of temporary injunction, the next date is posted on 30.08.2023. On 21.02.2024, the plaintiff has filed an application for extension of the order of temporary injunction and the defendants have filed I.A.No.16 seeking for vacating the order of temporary injunction and on 12.03.2024, the trial court has passed an order rejecting I.A.No.15 filed by the plaintiff and allowing I.A.No.16 filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and ordered that temporary injunction granted on 17.08.2023 stands vacated on 17.02.2024.

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:52414 HC-KAR Further the trial court has also dismissed the application I.A.No.17 filed by the plaintiff.

15. While considering the orders passed of not continuing the order of temporary injunction, though the trial Court has not formulated points for consideration regarding prima facie case, balance of convenience and if order of temporary injunction is not granted whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss or injury, but whether there is any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order is to be considered in the light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court. It is worthwhile to refer several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.