Shankarlal S/O Late Shri Mangilal vs Krishn Kumar S/O Late Shri ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1179 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 558/2021

Shankarlal S/o Late Shri Mangilal, Aged About 69 Years, R/o
Ward No. 6 Villege- Bay, Tehsil Dantaramgadh, District Sikar,
Raj.
                                                           ----Plaintiff-Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Krishn Kumar S/o Late Shri Munnalal, Aged About 50
         Years, R/o Ward No. 6 Villege- Bay, Tehsil Dantaramgadh,
         District Sikar, Raj.
2.       Vishnu Kumar S/o Late Shri Munnalal, Aged About 35
         Years, R/o Ward No. 6 Villege- Bay, Tehsil Dantaramgadh,
         District Sikar, Raj.
3.       Karankumar S/o Late Shri Munnalal, Aged About 33
         Years, R/o Ward No. 6 Villege- Bay, Tehsil Dantaramgadh,
         District Sikar, Raj.
4.       Bharatkumar S/o Late Shri Munnalal, Aged About 30
         Years, R/o Ward No. 6 Villege- Bay, Tehsil Dantaramgadh,
         District Sikar, Raj.
                                                  ----Defedants-Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta
For Respondent(s)          :



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                      Order

03/02/2021

This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is directed against the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by

the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dataramgarh whereby the

application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 CPC

has been dismissed.

(2 of 3) [CW-558/2021]

The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit for

dispossession, restoration of possession and permanent injunction

against the respondents-defendants wherein, vide order dated

21.09.2019, the learned trial Court, while allowing the temporary

injunction application filed by the petitioner, directed both the

parties to maintain status quo with regard to status of the

property as well as record. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an

application dated 10.09.2019 stating therein that the defendants

were trying to close plaintiff's right of way through iron gate

situated on eastern part of the property and hence, the

defendants be restrained from obstructing their right of way

through that gate. The learned trial Court has, vide order

impugned dated 21.12.2020, dismissed the application.

Assailing the order, learned counsel submitted that the

defendants have, in violation of the interim order dated

21.09.2019, locked the gate obstructing their right of way and he

was entitled for removal of the lock and reopening of the gate for

his ingress and egress. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on

judgment of this Court dated 25.03.2009 passed in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.1052/2008 in case of Satya Narain & Ors.

Vs. District Judge, Churu & Ors. in support of his submission.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

A perusal of the application dated 10.09.2019 (Annexure 2)

does not reveal a whisper of allegation that the gate in question

was locked by the defendants. The only allegation therein is that

they were trying to obstruct right of way of plaintiff-petitioner

through this gate. The learned trial Court has already, vide its

(3 of 3) [CW-558/2021]

order dated 21.09.2011, while allowing the temporary injunction

application filed by the petitioner, directed both the parties to

maintain status quo with regard to the property and hence, if the

plaintiff was having right of way through the iron gate situated in

the eastern side of the property at the time of passing of the order

dated 21.09.2019, the defendants have no right to obstruct the

same. But, this Court finds nothing from the record that the gate

has already been locked restricting right of way of the petitioner.

It is trite law that for same relief, two applications/petitions are

not maintainable. Injunction order is already operating and hence,

no second order restraining the defendants from obstructing right

of way of the petitioner could have been passed as prayed in the

application filed by the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, ratio laid down by

a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Satya Narain

(supra) has no applicability. The order impugned dated

21.12.2020 does not suffer from any such illegality or perversity

which could invite interference of this Court under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/68

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)