JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Tiijara, District Alwar in Civil Misc. Case No.42/2017 whereby the Temporary Injunction Application filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed by the learned trial Court and the parties were directed to maintain the status quo with regard to property in dispute. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit on 19.07.2017 alleging inter alia that the respondent No.2(defendant) had entered into an agreement to sale the suit property to the plaintiff through agreement dated 16.08.2014 against total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- out of which Rs.10,00,000/- were paid in advance. The due date for making balance payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and to execute the sale deed was fixed up to 15.06.2017. The plaintiff alleged that the appellant (defendant No.2) was interested in purchasing the suit property and he talked to the plaintiff also. It is further alleged that although plaintiff was ready and willing to purchase the suit property, however respondent No.2 (defendant) gave false assurances to execute the sale deed subsequently. Later on, it transpired to the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has sold the suit property to defendant No.2 and has executed the registered sale deed dated 06.04.2017. 3. The appellant (defendant No.2) who has purchased the suit property through registered sale deed dated 06.04.2017 from defendant No.1 filed his reply alleging that plaintiff is a broker and the deal to purchase the suit property held through the plaintiff and the plaintiff received Rs.60,000/- for his brokerage. The sale amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid vide cheque dated 05.04.2017 and Rs.15,00,000/- was paid vide cheque dated 05.08.2017. Thereafter, the registered sale deed was executed the title, ownership and possession of the suit property has been transferred to the appellant-defendant No.2. The appellant-defendant No.2 got issued patta from the Nagar Palika, Tijara on 11.05.2017. The appellant-defendant No.2 also got water and electricity connections and started the construction. It was further mentioned that the construction has already been completed and only finishing work is pending at the first floor. 4. The learned trial court vide order dated 19.09.2017 allowed the temporary injunction application and directed the defendants not to sale alienate or transfer the property to any other person and further directed to maintain the status quo with regard to suit property. 5. 4. The learned trial court vide order dated 19.09.2017 allowed the temporary injunction application and directed the defendants not to sale alienate or transfer the property to any other person and further directed to maintain the status quo with regard to suit property. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is a bona fide purchaser, he has purchased the suit property through registered sale deed after paying the full sale consideration. Counsel further submits that after registration of the sale deed dated 06.04.2017, he has taken the water and electricity connections and also taken the patta from Municipal Council for the property in dispute and has constructed ground plus first floor on the disputed plot and the finishing work of the ground floor has already been completed and the few finishing work on the first floor remains pending due to order of status quo passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is against the facts and law as no prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff and prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2017. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant may be given liberty to complete the remaining finishing work on the first floor of the disputed property at his own cost as he has invested a huge amount to develop the property. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Vs. T. Ramachandra & Ors. reported in (2008) 11 SCC 1 wherein para 26 & 27 has held as under:- “23. Rightly or wrongly constructions have come up. They cannot be directed to be demolished, at least at this stage. Respondent No. 7 is said to have spent three crores of rupees. If that be so, in our opinion, it would not be proper to stop further constructions. 24. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if while allowing the respondents to carry out constructions of the buildings, the same is made subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. The Trial Court is requested to hear out and dispose of the suit as early as possible. 24. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if while allowing the respondents to carry out constructions of the buildings, the same is made subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. The Trial Court is requested to hear out and dispose of the suit as early as possible. If any third party interest is created upon completion of the constructions, the deeds in question shall clearly stipulate that the matter is subjudice and all sales shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. All parties must cooperate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit. Respondents must also furnish sufficient security before the learned Trial Judge within four weeks from the date which, for the time being, is assessed at Rupees One Crore.” 7. Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The arguments raised by counsel for the appellant deserves to be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons firstly, the appellant has purchased the property in dispute through registered sale deed dated 06.04.2017. Secondly, the Municipal Council, Tijara has also issued a patta dated 11.05.2017 in favour of the appellant with regard to property in dispute and thirdly electric and water connection has been issued by the concerned authorities in the name of the appellant and he has completed the construction over the disputed property after investing the huge amount. 10. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to modify the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by learned trial Court only to the extent that the appellant is allowed to complete the remaining finishing work pending at first floor of the disputed property in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Vs. T. Ramachandra & Ors. (supra). 11. The appeal as well as stay application stands disposed of.