Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bheem Singh Arya Son Of Shankar Singh vs Mool Chand Arya Son Of Jeevan Singh on 13 March, 2019
Author: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Bench: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 5127/2019
Bheem Singh Arya Son Of Shankar Singh, Aged About 71 Years, By
Caste Baghela, Resident Of Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil And District
Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mool Chand Arya Son Of Jeevan Singh, By Caste Baghele,
Resident Of Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
2. Veeri Singh Son Of Totaram, By Caste Baghele, Resident Of
Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
3. Nawal Singh Son Of Deewan Singh, By Caste Baghele,
Resident Of Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
4. Maharam Son Of Bhawani Singh, By Caste Baghele, Resident
Of Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
5. Bhagwan Singh Son Of Ram Gopal, By Caste Baghele,
Resident Of Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
6. Chandan Son Of Kehari, By Caste Baghele, Resident Of Village
Bachhamadi, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
7. Khushi Ram Son Of Bhagwani, By Caste Baghele, Resident Of
Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 13/03/2019 An application instituted by the petitioner-appellant in the pending appeal before the Appellate Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, has been declined vide order dated 5th February, 2019, of which the petitioner is aggrieved of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the suit proceedings were pending and interim order continued through out until conclusion of the suit proceedings. Hence, the appellate Court ought to have granted application for temporary (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 05:09:22 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-5127/2019] injunction. It is further contended that to preserve the property involved until hearing on the pending appeal, is essential to safeguard the interests of the petitioner.
No other point was raised for consideration of this Court. Heard and considered.
Indisputably, the suit proceedings instituted by the petitioner have been concluded declining the case of the petitioner thereby dismissing the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11 th January, 2019. Further, the application seeking temporary injunction was considered by the Appellate Court testing the claim of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction on well settled principles i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
The Court below by a detailed order taking into consideration the factual matrix and evidence recorded by the trial Court while dismissing the suit so also in view of the law declared by the Apex Court of the land; declined the application of the petitioner.
On a glance of the impugned order dated 5th February, 2019, there appears to be no error for the reasons recorded therein supported with reasonings in support thereof; I find no illegality much less material illegality so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J Pcg/161 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 05:09:22 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)