24. One of the reliefs claimed in the petitions is that to restrain the respondents 4 and 5 from alienating the schedule property, during the pendency of the Suit. If any such transaction is entered during the pendency of the Suit, it is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act i.e., lis pendens and the purchasers are bound by the decree, if any, passed. Even if no injunction is granted, the petitioners would not sustain any loss since the decree, if any, passed in this Suit in favour of the petitioners, it will be binding on the purchasers/transferees under any instrument of transfer, but some times it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. However, as the trial Court declined to grant temporary injunction exercising its discretion judicially, we find no palpable error in exercise of such jurisdiction, thereby, we are not in a position to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the trial Court, exercising its discretion under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Therefore, we are unable to accede to the request of learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants to grant temporary injunction during the pendency of these Appeals, restraining the respondents 4 and 5 from alienating the schedule property, during the pendency of the Suit, in any manner.
