[2026:RJ-JP:1426] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4826/2024 Bhagwan Sahai Yadav S/o Shri Kishna Ram Yadav, Aged About 67 Years, R/o House No. 1, Bhura Patel Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus 1. Sangram Singh S/o Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Nanusar Bindayka, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Satish Kumar S/o Shri Ram Singh Jat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 113, Chhapuda Khurd, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Sub Registrar Fifth, Collectorate Campus, Banipark, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghan Shyam Singh Rathore with Mr. Anirudh Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta Mr. Jayesh Matai Mr. Kunal Chauhan Mr. Tanuj Gupta Dr. Anil Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 13/01/2026 1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 30.09.2024, whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the appellant was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he had filed a suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 25.10.2016, executed by him in favour of one Sangram Singh and, that he had also challenged the sale deed dated 13.01.2017, executed by Mr. Sangram Singh in favour of Mr. Satish. [2026:RJ-JP:1426] (2 of 2) [CMA-4826/2024] 3. He further submits that, since the suit was pending, at least an order ought to have been passed by the Court protecting the property in dispute by directing the defendants not to alienate the property during pendency of the suit. 4. He therefore contends that such an order ought to have been passed by the trial Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiff-appellant; therefore, no injunction order could be issued, and the temporary injunction application has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. 6. Heard both the parties. 7. This Court finds that, in a suit pending with regard to an immovable property, Section 52, doctrine of lis pendens applies. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to apply the said doctrine and direct the respondents that, if they intend to alienate the property, such alienation shall be made only after recording the fact of pendency of the present suit. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not restrained the Bank in any manner with regard to SARFAESI Act. 9. With the above observations, the present civil miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /36