ORDER : Chandra Kumar Songara, J. Instant miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to as 'plaintiff') against the impugned order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer, Jaipur, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the trial Court'), in T.I. Application No.12/2022 (CIS No.113/2022) titled as Shankar Bhawan Nirman Housing Cooperative Society Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Tambi and Others, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract, declaration and injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter to be referred to as 'defendants'). Alongwith the said suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiff, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide its impugned order dated 24.08.2022. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction. Counsel has further submitted that undisputedly, Smt.Asha Devi was the Khatedar tenant and she sold agricultural land to defendant No.1- Rajesh Kumar Tambi vide agreement dated 05.10.2005 and handed over the possession on the same day. The property was in possession of the defendant No.1, which he later-on, sold to the plaintiff through an agreement on 08.03.2015 and handed over the possession to the plaintiff after receiving the full price consideration. The defendant No.1, subsequently, acquired the title by way of registered sale-deed, which has been executed by Smt. Asha Devi in favour of defendant No.1 on 02.09.2015. Therefore, the defendant No.1 cannot challenge the factum of agreement and as per agreement, the entire consideration was paid to the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and possession was also obtained by the plaintiff. Counsel has contended that prima-facie case was in favour of the plaintiff but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and decided the same against the plaintiff. Counsel has contended that prima-facie case was in favour of the plaintiff but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and decided the same against the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 had neither challenged the agreement entered into with the plaintiff nor cancelled the agreement. Counsel has further contended that the defendant No.1 had no right to transfer the aforesaid land but he transferred this property by way of a symbolic gift deed executed in favour of his daughter and this transfer was made with an ulterior motive. Counsel has contended that the learned trial Court has illegally held that the plaintiff prima-facie failed to prove as to whether the consideration was paid to the defendant No.1. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saketa Vaksana LLP and another v. Kaukutla Sarala and Others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 773 . 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the learned trial Court has rightly held that no prima-facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff and also rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. Counsel has further argued that the plaintiff, himself has signed on aforesaid sale-deed dated 02.09.2015 as witness, hence, the alleged agreement dated 08.03.2015 is forged and fabricated. Therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record and the judgment cited herein-above. 7. In Para Nos.25 and 26 of the judgment i.e. Saketa Vaksana LLP and another (Supra), Honb'le Apex Court, has held as under :- 25. Since both the issues raised are seriously disputed which will be decided during the course of trial, we are of the view that the Orders dated 14.08.2019 passed by the division bench of the High Court do not warrant any interference. The High Court has already granted a Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in the suit property till the disposal of the Suit. The High Court has already granted a Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in the suit property till the disposal of the Suit. The interest of the Appellant - Developer has been sufficiently protected with respect to ownership of the suit property. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the Orders dated 14.08.2019 passed by the division bench of High Court, whereby the Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Appellant - Developer over the suit property has been vacated." 8. Undisputedly, Smt. Asha Devi was the Khatedar tenant, who sold the alleged agricultural land to the defendant No.1 vide agreement dated 05.10.2005 and later-on she executed the sale-deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 02.09.2015. 9. The defendant No.1 has entered into an agreement with regard to alleged agricultural land with the plaintiff-society on 08.03.2015 and defendant No.1, subsequently, acquired the title on 02.09.2015 by way of registered sale-deed, which has been executed by Smt. Asha Devi in favour of defendant No.1 on 02.09.2015. 10. It has been contended by learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the alleged agreement dated 08.03.2015 is forged and fabricated but they have not initiated any legal action on this ground. The questions that entire consideration was paid or not and the plaintiff is having possession or not on the alleged agreement land, as per alleged agreement dated 08.03.2015, are questions of fact, to be decided during the course of trial. 11. The trial Court itself observed in Para No.9 of its impugned order that the truthfulness and validity of alleged agreement could be decided after evidence. Therefore, the interest of the plaintiff in pending suit is required to be protected by restraining the defendants from transferring the property, which is subject matter of alleged agreement dated 08.03.2015. 12. In view of the above discussions, the trial Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.08.2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2022 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The defendants No.1 and 2 are, hereby, restrained from alienating or creating the third party rights in the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 14. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.08.2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2022 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The defendants No.1 and 2 are, hereby, restrained from alienating or creating the third party rights in the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.