Bhagwana Ram vs Gopiram
2021 Latest Caselaw 19118 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1080/2021

1. Bhagwana Ram S/o Surja Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Ward No. 2, Taranagar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu

2. Bhomaram S/o Ramdhan, Aged About 36 Years, Gajuwaas, Ward No. 2, Opp. Haryana Hospital, Near Tagore School, Sahwa Road, Taranagar, District Churu

----Appellants Versus

1. Gopiram S/o Chetram, Aged About 72 Years, Ward No. 2, Taranagar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu

2. Satyanarayan S/o Chetram, Ward No. 3, Taranagar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu

3. Choturam S/o Chetram, Ward No. 15, Punjab Colony, Near Sheela Peeth, Back Side Of Bus Stand, Hanumanagarh Town, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh

4. Indra Devi W/o Rukmanand, Ward No. 2, Taranagar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu

5. Subhash S/o Rukmanand, Ward No. 2, Taranagar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu

6. Brij S/o Rukmanand, Ward No. 2, Taranagar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu

7. State Of Rajasthan-State, Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Rajgarh Tehsil Rajgadh, District Churu

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

15/12/2021

This appeal is filed by the appellants-defendants No.4 & 5

against the order dated 26.02.2021, whereby the learned trial

Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to

(2 of 3) [CMA-1080/2021]

revenue record and at site in relation to agricultural land of Khasra

No.1483/400, ad-measuring 7.7135 situated at village Rohi

Taranagar.

Counsel for the appellants submits that they have purchased

3/24 share of the aforesaid land from the defendants No.1 to 3

vide registered sale-deed dated 25.02.2021 and are bonafide

purchasers. They are in possession of the purchased piece of

land, therefore, to the extent of their purchased piece of land, no

injunction should have been granted against them. Learned

counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the

judgment/order dated 09.04.2019 in the case of Rakesh

Makwana Vs. Vishant Infra Projects LLP [2019 SCC OnLine

Raj 903] and draw the attention of the Court towards para No.8,

which reads as under:

However, in the present case, respondent can be said to be a bona-fide purchaser for consideration. Hence, in case Temporary Injunction is granted in favour of the appellant, respondent would suffer an irreparable loss as he would not be able to enjoy the property purchased by him in the manner he liked. Moreover, principle of Lis Pendens would apply. In case the suit filed by the appellant is decreed, lower court can issue necessary directions in favour of the appellant in view of the principle of Lis Pendens.

Another judgment dated 21.11.2013 in the case of Dholi

V/s. Kishan Lal & Ors [2013 SCC Online Raj 3225] has also

been relied upon for the same contention.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

It transpires that vide impugned order, the learned trial

Court has passed only ad-interim injunction and the application for

temporary injunction is yet to be decided on merits. As far as the

judgments, referred to hereinabove, are concerned, both of them

(3 of 3) [CMA-1080/2021]

have been passed against the order, whereby the application for

temporary injunction was decided finally. Be that as it may, the

appellants are free to bring aforesaid proposition of law before the

learned trial Court while arguing the application for temporary

injunction finally and it is expected that the learned trial Court will

pass the order in accordance with law without being influenced by

the impugned order. The trial Court is expected to decide the

temporary injunction application expeditiously.

In view of above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this

appeal at the stage passing the ad-interim status quo order. The

appeal stands disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J 8-a.asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)