JUDGMENT 1. - This instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Appeal no. 47/2013 whereby the appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the defendants-respondents herein and set aside the order dated 3.5.2013 by which the trial court allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and granted temporary injunction in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. Learned District Judge while allowing the appeal further directed that if the defendants-respondents intend to transfer the suit property or any part thereof, they shall furnish prior information of such transfer in the court and shall also incorporate the fact of pendency of litigation in the document of transfer.Being aggrieved of the appellate order, the plaintiff-petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the appeal and quashing the interim injunction order passed by the trial court. He further submits that the trial court had passed a well reasoned and proper order under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC by restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property or any part thereof and maintaining status quo and thus interference by the appellate court was uncalled for. He further submits that the defendants in utter disregard of the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the appellate court, has transferred the suit property without furnishing prior information in the court and in haste sold the disputed property within four days of the order passed by the appellate court and as such, even guilty of contempt of court and the writ petition is allowable on the this sole ground alone. He further submits that the suit involves triable issues and the trial court is perfectly justified in allowing the application of the plaintiff. He placed reliance on Niranjan Singh & Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar, 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 426 , Narottam v. Geeta Devi & Ors, 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 240 and Bhagwati Singh v. Raja Laxman Singh 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 246 . 3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellate court acted well within its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and quashing the interim injunction order passed by the trial court. 3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellate court acted well within its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and quashing the interim injunction order passed by the trial court. He further submits that the respondents are not guilty of any violation of the directions issued by the appellate court and had transferred the property incorporating the facts of pendency of the litigation in the transfer deed (sale deed) dated 24.2.2014. He further submits that the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner is of mere injunction and the plaintiff petitioner has himself subsequently filed a comprehensive suit for partition with regard to the suit property and all the questions between them could well be settled in this suit for partition and hence no interference is called for under the limited jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment of Apex Court of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. State of Maharastra and ors 2014(1) CCC 111 (S.C) ; K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors.2014 (1) CCC 855 (S.C.) ; Bruce v. Silva Raj and Others (1987) (Supp.) SCC 161 and the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Pura v. Lalki and Another 1999 (2) Raj.RLW 1358 ; Smt. Raj Dulari v. Ram Niwas S/o Shri Hari Narain & Raghuveer Chaturvedi & J.D.A. 2013 (1) WLC 292 and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Virendra Kumar v. Additional District Judge, Kannauj & Ors.2014 (2) CCC 166 (Allahabad) . 4. Heard ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the material available on record. 5. The law with regard to power of the court under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC are well settled. The interference by the appellate court is not warranted unless the discretion exercised by the trial court is palpably incorrect or untenable. The appellate court will not interfere of the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. On the other hand, the appellate court may interfere if the order of the trial court appears to be arbitrary, perverse or capricious or where the trial court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. The appellate court will not interfere of the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. On the other hand, the appellate court may interfere if the order of the trial court appears to be arbitrary, perverse or capricious or where the trial court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. Each case has to be decided in accordance to the peculiar facts that emerge and no strait-jacket formula can be laid or adopted. The facts emerging from the instant petition reveal that the plaintiff/petitioner has subsequently instituted a suit for partition and for other ancillary relief in regard to the same property, in such a fact situation, this court is of the opinion that all the questions between the parties can be determined in the subsequent suit which is more comprehensive in nature and no interference is warranted under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court in the instant petition. 6. Before parting, this court deems it just and proper to clarify that the subsequent partition suit and other interlocutory applications, if any, filed in this partition suit, shall be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by the trial court or the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the appellate court or by the instant order. It is further clarified that whether the defendants have defied the direction issued by the appellate court in order dated 20.2.2014 or any other order of the court or are not guilty of any breach may also be decided in appropriate proceedings, if initiated by the plaintiff. Needless to mention here that the parties shall be free to raise and agitate all legal contentions available by judicial proceedings between them. 7. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application is also stands disposed of. 8. Since the matter pertains to rights of the parties in properties, therefore, the trial court would decide the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner expeditiously.Writ Petition disposed of as above. *******