Appeal against trial court's temporary injunction restraining sale/alienation of suit property in a specific performance suit based on an agreement to sell. The High Court held the injunction preserved the subject matter, found no arbitrariness or perversity in the trial court's discretion, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:44249]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4736/2025
Manoj Sharma S/o Shri Babulal, R/o 1098, Polya Mohalla, Near Buchara Hospital, Bassi, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
Kajodmal Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar, R/o Ward No. 03, Shyampur Kacholia, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Order
04/11/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:44249]
[CMA-4736/2025]
(2 of 5)
the respondent/plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 51,00,000/- in cash to the appellant/defendant as part of the sale consideration at the time of execution of the contract.
(3 of 5)
[2025:RJ-JP:44249]
[CMA-4736/2025]
plaintiff failed to adhere to the time schedule stipulated in the agreement, and since time was the essence of the contract, the learned Trial Court ought not to have granted the interim injunction.
Vs. Antox India P. Ltd.1 , while laying down the scope of appeals in case of temporary injunctions, held as under:
"In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of
1 1990 Supp SCC 727
(4 of 5)
[2025:RJ-JP:44249]
[CMA-4736/2025]
discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion."
(5 of 5)
[2025:RJ-JP:44249]
[CMA-4736/2025]
suit. The learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to decide the main suit independently, on its own merits.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J
Seema/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's grant of temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit property was liable to be set aside.
Whether time being the essence of the contract justified refusal of interim injunction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Wander Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd.Applied¶9
1990 Supp SCC 727 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Sharma
Kajodmal Sharma
Maneesh Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
