JUDGMENT : MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J. 1. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Order 43, Rule (1)(r) CPC against the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/2023 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 13.5.2023 and permanent injunction. In the suit it was claimed that the plaintiff-appellant executed an agreement to sale dated 13.5.2023 with the defendants-respondents nos. 1 and 2 with respect to their share of land to the extent of 1/444 each situated at Khasra No. 226 and 227 as mentioned in Para No. 2 of the temporary injuncation application (hereinafter referred to as the suit property for short) for a consideration of Rs. 5 lacs, out of which Rs. 2 lacs were given as advance and the remaining amount of Rs. 3 lacs was to be given within 15 days. It was claimed that the said agreement to sale was executed on 500/- rupees stamp paper and two witnesses Mohsin and Mohd Sahid witnessed the same. Thereafter, it was submitted that since the defendants refused to perform their part of contract, therefore, appellant got served upon the defendants a notice on 27.5.2023 through his advocate. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-appellant preferred the aforesaid suit seeking the above reliefs. Alongwith the said suit, the plaintiff-appellant also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking interim injunction. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present civil misc. appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is having prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and if the injunction sought is not granted to the appellant, then there would be irreparable loss to the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff-appellant sought injunction only to the extent that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants may be restrained from alienating the suit property. However, the learned trial court without considering the prayer of the appellant, on filmsy grounds rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 4. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff-appellant sought injunction only to the extent that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants may be restrained from alienating the suit property. However, the learned trial court without considering the prayer of the appellant, on filmsy grounds rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order passed by the learned trial court is well reasoned and justified and no interference is called for. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no such agreement to sale was executed by the defendants-respondents with the plaintiff-appellant and the alleged agreement to sale is a forged document. It is also submitted that the alleged agreement to sale on stamp paper of Rs. 500/- is also insufficiently stamped and there is no copy of the receipt of Rs. 2 lacs on record. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that it is a settled position that during the pendency of the suit, if alienation of the suit property is made, then the same shall not affect rights of plaintiff under any decree passed in suit unless property was alienated with permission of the Court. In support of his contentions, he relied upon following judgments: 1. Shyoraj Singh and Others vs. Zahir Ahamad and Others, 2013 (8) ADJ 492 2. Usmangani Abdulkadar Karbhaari vs. Ajit Indravadan Thakkar, 2017 (4) CurCC 206 3. Gurdwara Shaid Baba Sangat Singh vs. Smt. Surinder Kaur, 2008 (3) Law Herald 1867 4. Mohd. Osman vs. Dr. Devid, 2011 (2) All. M.R. 315 5. M.T. Kempegowda vs. G.K. Ramesh Kumar and Others, 2011 AIR (Kar) (HCR) 417 6. Ravinder Kumar Khanna vs. Prem Prakash Khanna, 2017 (0) Supreme (Del) 976 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. For deciding the present appeal, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC are relevant, which are as follows: “Order-XXXIX, Rule-1 - Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.- Where in any Suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise: (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors. (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by Order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other Order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.” 7. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred the suit for specific performance of agreement to sale deed dated 13.5.2023 with the averments that the suit property was agreed to be sold out by the defendants nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff-appellant for a consideration of Rs. 5 lacs, out of which Rs. 2 lacs have already been handed over to the defendants nos. 1 and 2. 8. The defendants’ case is that no such agreement to sale was ever executed and in the same breath they have raised an objection that the agreement to sale is insufficiently stamped. There is another objection that there no copy of the receipt of Rs. 2 lacs on record. It was further submitted that in the present case the theory of lis pendens would apply. 9. The learned trial court on the basis of the objections made by the defendants, rejected the application. However, the learned trial court failed to consider that all these objections are mixed question of facts and law and it could have been heard and decided after framing of the issues and leading evidence by the respective parties. Moreover, by the impugned order, the learned trial court has held that if third party rights are created, such rights would be subject to the decision of the suit. In my considered opinion, if third party rights are created, it would result in multiplicity and complicity of proceedings. Moreover, by the impugned order, the learned trial court has held that if third party rights are created, such rights would be subject to the decision of the suit. In my considered opinion, if third party rights are created, it would result in multiplicity and complicity of proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the defendants-respondents not to alienate the suit property as this Court finds that all the ingredients, i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for granting injunction order is in favour of the plaintiff. 10. In view of the above, the present Civil Misc. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.7.2023 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside. It is further directed that till the disposal of the suit, the defendants-respondents are restrained from alienating the suit property.