JUDGMENT Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is in possession of the property and his name has been mutated in the Revenue records. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that the 'Hibanama' on which the defendant No.1 has taken the possession and got his name mutated, is not binding to his rights. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was also filed seeking a temporary injunction, restraining the defendant No.1 not to alienate or transfer the suit property. Though, the trial Court found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, refused to grant injunction as the defendant No.1 stated that he ha~ no intention to transfer the suit property, nor to alienate the same. It was contended by Shri Maheshwari that to avoid Multiplicity of proceedings, the Court when once having found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, ought to have restrained the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property, hence, indulgence in appeal is sought. The law is well settled that the matter of grant or refusal to grant injunction is within the discretion of the Court trying the suit, and unless the discretion exercised is illegal or arbitrary, no interference can be made in appeal, therefore, when the defendant No.1 stated on oath that he is not alienating the suit property, and the Court trying the suit came to a finding that the application for injunction is based on the figment of imagination, in the opinion of this Court, no interference can be made. However, if the plaintiff comes to know that the defendant No.1 is trying to dispose of the suit property in any manner, he shall be at liberty to apply for injunction, and if that application is made, that shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier order of refusal to grant injunction. In terms of the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.