JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff appellant against the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by the learned lower court in civil misc. Case No. 243/2007, on the application filed under order 39 rr. 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC. By the said order, the learned Judge has rejected the application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant non-applicant from alienating the property till disposal of the suit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant plaintiff filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 25.05.2007 and for permanent injunction in the court of learned District Judge, Bikaner stating therein that it was agreed to sell the property situated at Mahajan, agricultural land, old Khasra No. 487, new Khasra No. 1951/1225 measuring 40 bighas, for a total consideration of Rs. 13,60,000/- to defendant respondent Smt. Geeta on 05.04.2007. It was further stated that in this respect an agreement was executed and got attested by the Notary Public at the instance of purchaser, in the names advised by her. It was further stated that at the time of agreement, a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- was paid by the defendant as an advance to the plaintiff. Further, by mutual agreement, time for executing the sale deed was extended and at the time of registration a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was paid by the defendant but the remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/-remained due. It was stated that sale deed was executed but the remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/- was not paid at that time and it was agreed that it will be paid within one or two days, but later on, defendant denied to pay the same. It was further averred that after going through the copy of the sale deed, it transpired that an amount of only Rs. 4,00,000/- has been shown as consideration in the sale deed and that was shown to be fully paid, in these circumstances, plaintiff appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 25.05.2007 executed in favour of the defendant respondent, on the ground that the sale deed was required to be executed for a consideration of Rs. 13,60,000/ - but the defendant respondent deceitfully got it executed for a consideration of Rs. 13,60,000/ - but the defendant respondent deceitfully got it executed for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-, taking undue advantage of appellant's old age and her son's illiteracy. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed, reiterating the facts mentioned in the suit, with a prayer that status quo during the pendency of the suit may be maintained and defendant respondent be directed not to alienate the suit property till disposal of the suit. 4. The defendant respondent, in reply, denied all the averments made in the plaint, stating that she purchased the suit property against a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- full consideration had been paid and got it registered in her name, and she is enjoying the property peacefully. Revenue Record in this respect has also been entered in her name. On the basis of these submissions, it was prayed to reject the application filed by the plaintiff appellant. The learned lower court, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 09.10.2007 rejected the application filed by the applicant. Against that this appeal has come up for hearing. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff, appellant, stated that appellant is an old lady and her son is illiterate. Defendant taking undue advantage of their disability, deceitfully got registered the sale deed in her favour, without paying full consideration. Further questions raised by her in plaint are to be decided in the original suit proceedings. If the defendant respondent is not restrained from alienating the property, then the very purpose of filing the suit will be frustrated and further there will be multiplicity of suit proceeding. In these circumstances, it is prayed that status quo may be granted and defendant respondent be restrained from alienating the property till disposal of the suit. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant respondent, contended that the defendant respondent is bona fide purchaser, after paying full consideration. She is having a registered sale deed in her favour. In these circumstances, the appellant is not entitled for any relief. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the application, that order may be maintained and appeal may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order 8. She is having a registered sale deed in her favour. In these circumstances, the appellant is not entitled for any relief. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the application, that order may be maintained and appeal may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order 8. Admittedly, a suit for cancellation and permanent injunction is pending and in that suit, plaintiff appellant has asserted that it was agreed to sale the said land for a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- as consideration, and against that she has received Rs. 10,00,000/- on different dates. She has also stated that an agreement was executed at the instance of defendant respondent. She has further alleged that total consideration has not been paid. The appellant is stated to be an old lady and her son is also illiterate. Without commenting and observing anything on the merit of the case, there are allegations that without paying full consideration sale deed has been got executed deceitfully. All questions raised in the plaint are to be adjudicated in the main suit, that is pending for disposal. If the defendant respondent is not restrained from alienating the property, then unnecessary litigation will increase and it will create other compliancies. The learned lower court has not considered this aspect of the case, and dismissed the application filed by the appellant, thus, the impugned order is not sustainable. 9. Considering the contentions placed by the appellant, in the interest of justice, it seems just and proper to restrain the defendant respondent from alienating the property till disposal of the suit. 10. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and defendant respondent is hereby restrained from alienating the suit property, without the permission of the court, till disposal of the suit. Looking to the facts of the case, it is further directed that the learned trial court will expedite the hearing of the case. No order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******