[2026:RJ-JP:1435] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8199/2022 1. Udda Lal @ Udaylal S/o Keshar Lal Sharma, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Bhanpura, Post Dhikoliya, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan Through Lrs. 1/1. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Udda Lal @ Udaylal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Bhanpura, Post Dhikoliya, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 1/2. Sohan Lal Sharma S/o Udda Lal @ Udaylal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Bhanpura, Post Dhikoliya, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 1/3. Tara Chand Sharma S/o Udda Lal @ Udaylal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Bhanpura, Post Dhikoliya, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Laxmi Chand S/o Prahalad Sharma, R/o Bhanpura, Post Dhikoliya, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 2. Dwarka Devi W/o Laxmi Chand Sharma, R/o Bhanpura, Post Dhikoliya, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 13/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 19.08.2019 as well as 12.04.2022, whereby the temporary injunction application has been rejected. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit for specific performance is pending before the trial Court and during the pendency of the suit for specific performance the [2026:RJ-JP:1435] (2 of 2) [CW-8199/2022] property ought to have been protected by the trial Court during the pendency of the suit.. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss in any manner in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the trial Court as well as Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application of the petitioner. 4. Heard both the parties. 5. Since there is a concurrent findings about the prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the order passed so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. However, it is made clear that the parties will be governed by provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and if any sale is made by the defendant, then the fact of pendency of the present suit has to be informed to the purchaser by defendants. 7. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /39