[2025:RJ-JP:42490] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4573/2025 Prem Sagar Colonizers, Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office At 373, Lane No. 1, Rajapark, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Director Shri Vijay Kumar Vadhvani S/o Shri Kishanchand Vadhvani, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 6-B, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur, Presently Residing At Plot No. 775, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Prakash Chand S/o Shri Badrinarayan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Mahal, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Smt. Nanagi Devi W/o Shri Badrinarayan, R/o Village Mahal, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Rekha D/o Late Shri Jagdishnarayan, Wife Of Shri Mahesh, R/o Kadiwalo Ki Dhani, Behind Anaj Mandi, Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Sangeeta D/o Late Shri Jagdishnarayan, Wife Of Shri Kapil, R/o Kadiwalo Ki Dhani, Behind Anaj Mandi, Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Sub-Registrar, Jaipur-First, Registration Office-Mukhya Bhawan, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Tapesh Parmar, Ms. Jyoti Swami, Ms. Yashika Vijaywaria, Mr. Tapeshwar Pal Singh Parmar with Mr. Ankit Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. C. Sharma with Mr. Lokesh Parmar, Mr. Ashok Sharma, Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Dharma Tam, Ms. Nandini Mirdha [2025:RJ-JP:42490] (2 of 3) [CMA-4573/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/10/2025 1. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan- I, Headquarters Sanganer, whereby the learned Trial Court declined to grant ad interim injunction. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, considering the fact that the present suit has been filed for specific performance of a contract, the learned Court below has erred in refusing to grant ad interim injunction. He further submits that if the respondents are permitted to alienate the suit property, in the absence of such injunction, the rights of the appellant will be seriously prejudiced. He further submits that it is a well-settled principle of law that in all suits for specific performance, the property in dispute is required to be preserved till the final adjudication. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents appear as Caveator. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 1 to 4 submitted that they undertake not to transfer, alienate, or create any third-party rights in respect of the suit property. Till, the application for temporary injunction is finally decided on merits by the learned Trial Court. They further submitted that the learned Trial Court may be directed to decide the application for temporary injunction on priority basis. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar. [2025:RJ-JP:42490] (3 of 3) [CMA-4573/2025] 6. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 is quashed and set aside and the present miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of with the following directions. 7. That all the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 03.11.2025. The learned Trial Court shall afford due opportunity to the respondents to file their reply to the application for temporary injunction and to the appellants to file rejoinder, if any. 8. The learned Trial Court is further directed to decide the temporary injunction application on its merits within a period of Fifteen (15) days from the completion of pleadings in the application for temporary injunction, but in any case not later than Sixty (60) days from today. 9. Pending the disposal of the application for temporary injunction by the learned Trial Court, the private respondents No.1 to 4 are restrained from selling, alienating, transferring, or creating any third-party rights in respect of the suit property. 10. However, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to decide the application for temporary injunction independently, without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. 11. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/8