Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urmila vs Ashwani on 8 April, 2021
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
(1 of 3) [CMA-216/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
..
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 216/2021.
Smt. Urmila D/o Dharamchand Galhotra, W/o Shri Kulbhushan
Verma, aged About 67 Years, Gali No. 8, Marfat Verma Dental
Clinic, Abohar, Dis. Fajilka, Punjab
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ashwani S/o Krishn Kumar Nagpal, 1/270, Housing Board,
Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar Through Their Power Of
Attorney Holder One Gurdas Rai Residence Of 78, E-
Block, Sriganganagar
2. Poonam D/o Krishn Kumar Nagpal, 1/270, Housing Board,
Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar Through Their Power Of
Attorney Holder One Gurdas Rai Residence Of 78, E-
Block, Sriganganagar
3. Komal Lata D/o Krishn Kumar Nagpal, 1/270, Housing
Board, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar Through Their
Power Of Attorney Holder One Gurdas Rai Residence Of
78, E-Block, Sriganganagar
4. Sonam W/o Sandeep Ratan Nagpal, 1/270, Housing
Board, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar Through Their
Power Of Attorney Holder One Gurdas Rai Residence Of
78, E-Block, Sriganganagar.
5. Sharad Nagpal S/o Sandeep Ratan Nagpal, 1/270,
Housing Board, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar Through
Their Power Of Attorney Holder One Gurdas Rai Residence
Of 78, E-Block, Sriganganagar
----Respondents
(2 of 3) [CMA-216/2021]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
08/04/2021
The present appeal has been filed against order dated
11.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1,
Sriganganagar, Civil Misc. Matter No. 25/2019 (CIS No. 87/2019)
Ashwani & Ors. Vs. Smt. Urmila whereby the application seeking
temporary injunction under order 39 rule 1, 2 CPC preferred by
the respondents / plaintiffs has been allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant at great length.
Learned counsel for the appellant stated that
respondents/plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed
property; that the application under order 7 rule 11 CPC filed by
the appellant/defendant has not been decided by the learned Trial
Court and instead of deciding the application under order 7 rule 11
CPC, the Trial Court has proceeded to decide the application filed
under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC on behalf of the
respondents/plaintiffs. Learned counsel also stated that as the
plaintiffs/respondents are not in physical possession of the
disputed property, therefore, they are not entitled to seek any
injunction against the appellant-defendant, who is in possession of
the disputed property. In support of his arguments, learned
counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment rendered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Adiveppa & Ors. Vs.
Bhimappa & Anr [Civil Appeal No. 11220/2017 (Arising out of
SLP (C) No. 5664/2012), decided on 06.09.2017].
(3 of 3) [CMA-216/2021]
For ready reference, the impugned order as passed by the
learned Trial Court is reproduced here as under:-
^^vkns"k
11- fygktk [email protected] }kjk vizkfFkZ;[email protected];k
ds fo:} izLrqr vLFkk;h fu'ks/kkKk dk izkFkZuki= vUrxZr
vkns"k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk Lohdkj fd;k
tkdj vizkfFkZ;[email protected];k ds fo:} bl vk"k; dh vLFkk;h
fu'ks/kkKk tkjh djrs gq, mls ikcan fd;k tkrk gS fd og okn
ds yacudky esa vFkok vafre fuiVkjs rd fooknxzLr laifRr]
okds edku la[;k 78 bZ Cykd] Jhxaxkuxj lkbt 15 x50 QqV
nf{k.k fn"kk esa [kqyrk gqvk] dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls jgu]
cS; ;k cspku djus ls ckt o eeuw jgsA^^
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, in
my opinion, there is no arbitrariness and illegality in the impugned
order; and even the impugned order cannot be said to be
capricious, therefore, no interference is called for.
Accordingly and in view of the observations foregoing, the
instant appeal is rejected.
However, having considered the facts and circumstances of
this case, the learned Trial Court is expected to decide the
application filed by the appellant-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure on priority basis.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
20-Ashish/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
