JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. The present Misc. Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants-defendants laying challenge to an order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Civil Misc. Case No. 59/2011 on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction. The quashment of the sale affected by the appellants-defendants was sought, as according to the plaintiffs, propositus of the defendants-Ratan Lal had gone in adoption to Narayan Lal, for which his rights in the property of Shri. Lachchhi Ram had extinguished. 3. Learned Trial Court, after perusal of the record and the documents placed by the plaintiffs, prima facie, found that Ratan Lal had gone in adoption to Narayan Lal and thus allowed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure granting injunction, as under:- 4. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, invited attention of this Court towards a judgment dated 27.02.2003, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Desuri, District Pali whereby, a suit filed by the present appellants had been decreed and they have been held entitled for share in the property of said Shri. Lachchhi Ram. Mr. Shah also invited attention of this Court towards another suit filed by the plaintiffs under Sections 88, 89 and 188-92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, seeking declaration, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, by the Sub Divisional Officer, Desuri, District Pali on 03.04.2013. 5. In view of the facts narrated above, Mr. Shah contended that when the rights of the parties have already been determined by competent Revenue Court and the present appellants have already been held entitled for their share in the property of Shri. Lachchhi Ram, the appellants are indisputably the owners of the property and the sale affected by them cannot be legally questioned by the plaintiffs. 6. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, contended that there is enough material available on record of the Trial Court evincing that Ratan Lal had gone in adoption to one Narayan Lal. 6. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, contended that there is enough material available on record of the Trial Court evincing that Ratan Lal had gone in adoption to one Narayan Lal. As such, the Trial Court had committed no error in passing the order impugned, which would protect the rights not only of the parties involved in the present appeal, but also of the prospective purchasers, during the period interregnum. 7. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court instead of pronouncing upon anything on merit of the case of rival parties, as the same would affect their rights before the Trial Court, is of the firm view that as far as the sale, transfer or alienation of the property during the pendecney of a lis is concerned, the same is always subject to the provisions contained under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and hence order of maintaining status quo cannot be said to be erroneous. 8. However, the order of restraint passed by the Trial Court in relation to construction and use of the plot/property in question cannot be countenanced. The appellants and other purchasers having purchased the property, cannot be restrained from using the same notwithstanding the risk they have taken. 9. In view of the above, the following stipulation in the impugned order dated 01.02.2018 is quashed and set aside. 10. In the facts of the present case, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible, preferably within a year. 11. The present appeal stands allowed in part, as indicated above.