JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Bharatpur, whereby an application filed by respondent No.2 under Order 41, Rule 5 CPC has been allowed, and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo qua the property in dispute. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners which was dismissed on 2.4.2013 by the learned trial court. The respondent No.2 preferred civil regular appeal along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Order 41, Rule 5 CPC for temporary injunction. By order dated 10.5.2014 the said application was allowed by the first appellate court, and status quo order with respect to the property in dispute was passed. Hence, this petition before this court. 3. Mr. S.L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that since respondent No.2 had lost the suit, she did not have a strong prima facie case in her favour. Therefore, the learned Judge erred in granting the temporary injunction in her favour. Secondly, the learned Judge has not considered the contentions raised by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. Banwari Sharma has pleaded that until and unless the appellate court goes through the evidence, the property in dispute needs to be protected. Respondent No.2 had claimed that she had bought the property in dispute from one Mangliya, who had the title and possession of the said property. Although this fact had been controverted by the petitioners, but in order to adjudicate on the issue of the title and possession, the learned Judge would have go through the evidence. Therefore, till the final disposal of the appeal the learned Judge was justified in directing the parties to maintain status quo. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 6. Merely because respondent No.2, as the plaintiff, had lost the civil suit before the trial court, would not deny her the right to seek temporary injunction from the first appellate court. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 6. Merely because respondent No.2, as the plaintiff, had lost the civil suit before the trial court, would not deny her the right to seek temporary injunction from the first appellate court. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dismissal of the suit would dis-entitle respondent No.2 from a temporary injunction, is unacceptable. 7. Moreover, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that according to the appellant she had bought the property from one Mangliya. Although this fact may have been countered by the petitioners, and the counter may have been accepted by the trial court, but nonetheless it is the judgment and decree of the trial court which is under the scanner of the learned Judge. Hence, the learned Judge was justified in concluding that until and unless he goes through the entire evidence of the case, till such point the nature of the property ought to be protected. In case the property is permitted to be alienated, it would endlessly lead to multiplicity of litigation. Hence, the learned Judge has committed no error in granting the temporary injunction in favour of respondent No.2. 8. For the reasons stated above, this petition is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application, too, stands dismissed. 9. As a last resort, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the learned Judge should be directed to decide the appeal within a given time frame. However, this court is not inclined to accede to this request. But the learned Judge is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.Petition Dismissed. *******