AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal arises out of the order dated 1.4.2019, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court or learned Court below), vide which the appellant's request for ad-interim injunction has been refused.
The learned Court below while refusing to grant ad-interim injunction observed that the defendants have produced various sale deeds ranging from 2007 to 2019 and indicated that many shops in question had already been sold and the possession has been handed over. The learned Court below has further observed that the plaintiff had neither impleaded the purchasers as parties nor has he sought any relief of possession. While turning down the prayer for ad-interim injunction, the learned trial Court has observed that the reply/written statement of the defendants is yet to come and the injunction can be granted only after taking into account the defense/reply of the defendants.
Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the order impugned dated 1.4.2019, contended that the learned Court below ought to have pass an order of status-quo, so as to ward off against further complications.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, in a suit for partition filed by the appellant, when the reply/written statement of the defendant is yet to come and since many shops out of the disputed property have already been sold way back in the year 2007 to 2019, the plaintiff cannot seek an injunction without even waiting for response of the respondents. The loss, if any can be compensated by payment of money.
This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned interlocutory order dated 1.4.2019.
The appeal is, therefore, rejected.