[2026:RJ-JP:472] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 542/2025 1. Vishnu Kumar Tank S/o Late Shri Sooraj Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Naya Ghar, Gali No. 3, Gulab Bari, Ajmer, 2. Uday Singh Sankhla S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh Sankhla, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Mali Mohalla, Kundan Nagar, Ajmer. 3. Hoshiyar Singh Sankhla S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh Sankhla, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Mali Mohalla, Kundan Nagar, Ajmer. 4. Pushkar Narayan S/o Late Shri Mohan, Aged About 56 Years, Ro Chhoti Basti, Mali Mohalla, Pushkar, District Ajmer. 5. Raju S/o Late Shri Mohan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Chhoti Basti, Mali Mohalla, Pushkar, District Ajmer. ----Appellants-Defendaants Versus 1. Mahesh Gehlot S/o Shri Ganesh Gehlot, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Tyagiram Ji Ki Kothi, Motisar Road, Ganahera, Pushkar District Ajmer. 2. Dilip Ojha S/o Shri Chandrashekhar Ojha, Aged About 68 Years, R/o C/o Shri Mahesh Gehlot S/o Shri Ganesh Gehlot, R/o Tyagiram Ji Ki Kothi, Motisar Road, Ganahera, Pushkar District Ajmer. 3. Ghanshyam Pawar S/o Shri Jethanand Panwar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o C/o Shri Mahesh Gehlot S/o Shri Ganesh Gehlot, R/o Tyagiram Ji Ki Kothi, Motisar Road, Ganahera, Pushkar District Ajmer. ----Respondents-Plaintiffs For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma with Mr. Mahesh Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order [2026:RJ-JP:472] (2 of 6) [CMA-542/2025] 08/01/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the appeal is being finally heard. 2. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.4, Ajmer whereby the application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was decided against the present appellants-defendants wherein they were restrained from alienating the land in question and also from demolition or construction on the property in dispute till the adjudication of suit proceedings. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the applicants had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreements dated 09.11.2023, 10.11.2023 & 29.11.2023 in regard to a land ad-measuring 5 bighas. 4. It was pleaded in the suit that the defendants received certain amounts as part consideration for sale of disputed property. The applicants according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, requested defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for execution of the agreement after diwali and also for the receipt of Rs.1,00,00,000/- but the same was lingered upon by the defendants. 5. The applicants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the same was being lingered by the defendants and therefore, sent a notice through advocate on 06.01.2024 and the reply to the same was sent by the defendants. The counter to the reply was also sent by the advocate on 15.01.2024 and the defendants were requested to [2026:RJ-JP:472] (3 of 6) [CMA-542/2025] execute the agreement but in spite of the request, no action was taken by the defendants. Therefore, the applicants had filed the suit for specific performance. 6. The defendants filed the reply denying the averments of the plaint and contended that no written agreement was ever entered between the parties. In para Nos. 3, 4 & 5 only, the averments of receipt is there which goes to show that there was no written agreement between the applicants and the defendants. The applicants have not impleaded the sisters of non applicant No.1 Vishnu Kumar namely Rajni and Kanta Devi. They further contended that even all the legal successors of Imarti Devi have not been pleaded as party and therefore, the applicants has not come with clean hands. 7. The defendants further pleaded that there was no agreement to receive Rs.1,00,00,000/- as being alleged by the applicant. Moreover, no right, title or interest is created in favour of the applicant. It was argued that merely receipt of Rs. 7,00,000/- and issuance of receipts of that amount do not create any cause of action in favour of the applicant. It was also argued that applicants has stated only to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- but has not stated that he was ready and willing to pay the entire consideration. Thus, there is no prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the applicants and, therefore, the temporary injunction application may be rejected. 8. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 25.10.2024 after hearing both the parties decided all the three issues of prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the applicants and on the basis of the finding, the [2026:RJ-JP:472] (4 of 6) [CMA-542/2025] temporary injunction application was allowed restraining the defendants from not only selling the property in dispute, but also restrained the defendants from making any demolition or construction in the disputed property. Against the said order impugned, the defendants preferred the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court in the suit for specific performance could have restrained them only to the extent of protecting the rights of the applicants by staying the alienation of the disputed property, but could not have restrained the owners of the property from its utilization and, therefore, he submits that the order impugned restraining the defendants-appellants from demolishing or making construction may be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that receipts of certain amount or even an agreement to sell, if any, do not create any right, title or interest in the property in favour of the purchaser. He submits that the only right accrued is to get the specific performance of the agreement and further, during the pendency of the suit, the utilization of the property by the defendants could not have been prohibited by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, he prays that the order impugned may be set aside to the extent of restraining the defendants from demolishing or making new construction. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since prima facie case has been found in their favour, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is in accordance with law. He submits that if his suit is decreed then any material alteration in the property may cause prejudice to his rights as the Court may [2026:RJ-JP:472] (5 of 6) [CMA-542/2025] not exercise discretion of specific performance in his favour on account of any material alteration in the property and therefore, he prays that judgment passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference and the appeal may be rejected. 12. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that the suit was filed for specific performance based on the receipts of certain amount by the defendants. It is not in dispute between the parties that the possession of the disputed property is with the defendants-appellants. During the pendency of the suit for specific performance, if the owner and the possession holder of the property is restrained from utilizing the property then certainly the defendants will have an irreparable injury if ultimately for any reason the suit fails. Further, the balance of convenience has to be adjudged in such a manner that no injury is caused to any of the parties to the suit due to the injunction order passed during the pendency of the suit. 14. This Court also finds that a balance has to be made between the parties, so that not a party may suffer irreparable loss due to the injunction order. 15. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, where the relief is for specific performance of agreements has been sought by the plaintiffs and the possession is with defendants, the only order ought to have been passed by the learned Trial Court is to restrain the defendants from alienating or creating any third party interest in the disputed property. Beyond that no order of injunction ought to have been [2026:RJ-JP:472] (6 of 6) [CMA-542/2025] granted to the effect of demolition or construction in the property held by the appellants. 16. Therefore, the order dated 25.10.2024 to the extent that the defendants-appellants shall not alienate the property in dispute is maintained. However, so far as the other part of the order dated 25.10.2024 restraining the defendants from making any demolition or construction is quashed and set aside. 17. Further, it is made clear that the appellants will not claim any equity on the basis of any alteration or construction made by them in the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 18. With the above observations, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. 19. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/4