[2025:RJ-JP:49267] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4856/2025 Bhanwarlal S/o Shri Udaram Jangid, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Baluram Compounder Ki Gali, Jaipur Road, Sikar Tehsil And District Sikar ----Appellant Versus Dinesh Dhabai S/o Shri Madanlal Dhabai, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Dhod Road, Bandiya Bas, Sikar Tehsil And District Sikar ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 04/12/2025 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant assailing the order dated 14.10.2025, whereby the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff was partly allowed while directing the parties to maintain status quo in regard to the record of the property. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he had purchased the property in dispute by way of agreement to sell dated 18.02.2022 for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and the possession was also given by the defendant to the plaintiff. On the very same day, the disputed property was given by the plaintiff to defendant on rent @ Rs.30,000/- per month and rent agreement was executed on 25.03.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that since the sale deed was not executed in pursuance of the agreement to [2025:RJ-JP:49267] (2 of 3) [CMA-4856/2025] sell dated 18.02.2022. Therefore, he filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant-respondent for performance of the agreement dated 18.02.2022. Along with the said suit, he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. Learned Trial Court allowed temporary injunction application to the effect of maintaining status quo in regard to the record of the property, however, he contends that learned Trial Court ought to have granted the stay to the effect of status quo in regard to the entire property, including restraining the defendants from making any alteration or new construction in the disputed property. 4. He contends that learned Trial Court thus have committed illegality in partially allowing the temporary injunction application instead of complete status quo on the disputed property. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court finds that under the agreement to sell dated 18.02.2022, the plaintiff do not get any right, title or interest except a right to get the agreement specifically performed. Till the agreement to sell is not specifically enforced by a decree of Court, the seller cannot be restrained to use the fruits of the property. The seller can only be restrained not to alienate the property in dispute. Learned Trial Court has already restrained the defendant to that effect. In the suit for specific performance, complete status quo cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff-purchaser. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect, that on the basis of the rent agreement also, plaintiff is entitled for getting a restrain order against the defendant from not altering the property in dispute. [2025:RJ-JP:49267] (3 of 3) [CMA-4856/2025] 7. This Court finds that the Rent Agreement, dispute could only be adjudicated by the learned Rent Tribunal and not by the Civil Court. If any, right is there with the plaintiff under the rent agreement, then, the same can be agitated by plaintiff before the learned Rent Tribunal and not before the Civil Court. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order impugned dated 14.10.2025. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 9. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/11