Rajasthan High Court
Parveen Daughter Of Saeda vs Khaleel Son Of Sadeek on 5 April, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4349/2018
Parveen Daughter Of Saeda, Chejara, Resident Of Ward No. 34,
Jhunjhunu, Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
1. Khaleel Son Of Sadeek, Resident Of Mohalla Chejaran,
Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. (Deceased) Rafiq Son Of Sadeek, Through Lrs
2/1 Smt. Najma Wife Of Late Rafiq
2/2 Tofiq Son Of Late Rafiq
2/3 Safiq Son Of Late Rafiq
2/4 Irfan Son Of Late Rafiq
All Resident Of Ward No. 34, Mohalla Chejaran, Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
2/5 Mst. Daulat Daughter Of Late Rafiq Wife Of Hafij,
Resident Of Mohalla Chejaron Ka, Near Bhoot Bawadi,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2/6 Mst. Tamanna Daughter Of Late Rafiq
2/7 Mst. Muskan Daughter Of Late Rafiq
Both residents of Ward No.34, Mohalla Chejaran,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.) and both being minor through natural
guardian mother Smt. Nazma Wife of Late Rafiq, resident
of Ward No.34, Mohalla, Chejaran, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
3. Anwar Son Of Sadeek, Resident Of Mohalla, Chejaran,
Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
4. Janat Wife Of Habeeb Daughter Of Late Sadeek,
5. Mariyam Wife Of Hussain, Daughter Of Late Sadeek
6. Inayat Ali Son Of Late Hussain
7. Akbar Ali Son Of Late Hussain
8. Noorjaha Daughter Of Late Hussain
9. Jubeda Daughter Of Late Hussain
10. Kussum Bano Daughter Of Late Hussain
All Resident Of Mohalla Chejaran, Tehasil And District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 12/04/2022 at 08:46:07 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-4349/2018]
11. Khatija Daughter Of Late Abdul Hameed
12. Rasid Son Of Late Abdul Hameed
13. Khurshid Son Of Late Abdul Hameed
14. Jamila Wife Of Late Sattar.
15. Sabir Son Of Late Sattar
16. Jabir Son Of Late Sattar
17. Jakir Son Of Late Sattar
18. Mahamood Ali Son Of Late Sugra
19. Mohd. Hussain Son Of Late Sugra
20. Yusuf Ali Son Of Late Sugra
21. Jubeda Daughter Of Late Sugra
22. Rubina Daughter Of Late Sugra
23. Saddam Son Of Late Khurshid Bano
All Resident Of Mohalla Chejaran, Tehasil And District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
24. Javed Ali Son Of Late Khurshid Bano, Minor Through
Natural Guardian Father Mahamood Ali Son Of Shri Kasam
Ali Resident Of Mohalla Chejaran, Tehasil And District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
25. Najmeen Bano Daughter Of Late Khurshid Bano, Resident
Of Mohalla Chejaran, Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
26. Yasmin Bano Daughter Of Late Khurshid Bano, Minor
Through Natural Father Mahamood Ali Son Of Shri Kasam
Ali Resident Of Mohalla Chejaran, Tehasil And District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
27. Aslam Son Of Late Saeda, Resident Of Mohalla Chejaran,
Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu.
28. Saleem Khan Son Of Amin Khan Resident Of F 80, Indira
Nagar, Jhunjhunu.
29. Nasrin Bano Wife Of Mohd. Ikram Resident Of Shekhsar,
Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu.
30. Mustak Ali Son Of Yasin, Resident Of Mohalla Khora,
Tehasil And District Jhunjhunu.
31. Mohd. Irfan Son Of Mohd. Anwar, Resident Of Near
Muslim School, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
32. Shri Ram Son Of Bhagwanaram, Resident Of Bheel Nagar,
Tan Pawana Tehasil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj)
(Downloaded on 12/04/2022 at 08:46:07 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-4349/2018]
33. State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Tehasildar
Sahab Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
05/04/2022
Appellant-plaintiff by way of this appeal, has assailed the
order dated 24.05.2018 passed in civil Misc. case No.53/2016 by
Additional District Judge No.1, Jhunjhunu whereby her application
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was dismissed.
It appears that the appellant-plaintiff has filed civil suit
assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.07.1984 in the year
2012.
The appellant has prayed for grant of temporary injunction
for restraining the defendant from transferring/alienating on
creating their party interest in which suit property on the basis of
impugned decree dated 15.07.1984.
The trial court, considered prima facie case of the appellant
and declined to pass any interim stay and accordingly, the
application of temporary injunction has been dismissed on merits.
By perusal of the above trial court's order, it appears that the
trial court has considered the prima facie case of appellant on
merits and has exercised its discretion and equitable jurisdiction in
denying the interim relief in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
It is clear from record that the appellant has prayed for
seeking temporary injunction after a lapse of more than 25 years
(4 of 4) [CMA-4349/2018]
and the trial court has considered her case on merits while
declining to grant interim stay. The impugned order dated
24.05.2018 appears to be just and proper and the view taken by
the trial court is a possible view. The Supreme Court, in case of
Mohd. Mehtab Khan and Ors Vs. Khusnuma Ibrahim Khan
and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 221 has observed that if the view
expressed by the trial court on the application for temporary
injunction is a possible view, the appellate court should not
interfere and does not require to substitute the view of the trial
court.
In given facts and circumstances, this court does not find
any reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the
trial court. After lapse of such long delay, no case is made out for
grant of interim stay. However, the dismissal of the application for
temporary injunction will not affect the rights of the appellant-
plaintiff in pursuing her civil suit.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed
of.
Any other pending application, if any, also stand(s) disposed
of.
(SUDESH BANSAL ),J
SACHIN/1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
