Hari Narayan Khandelwal vs Nalanda Crusher Pvt Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 472 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6067/2018

Hari Narayan Khandelwal S/o Shri Kishanlal Khandelwal, R/o 15-
A, Jagdamba Colony, Naya Khera, Ambabari, Jaipur, Rajasthan
And Shop Address           A-C, Vivekanand              Colony, Naya Khera,
Ambabari, Jaipur, Rajasthan
                                                      ----Petitioner/Defendant
                                    Versus
Nalanda Crusher Private Limited, Village Bilonchi, Tehsil Amer,
District Jaipur. Through Its Direct, Phoolchand Verma S/o Shri
Narayan Lal Verma, Harishankar Agarwal S/o Shri Inder Chand
Agarwal,    Sunil    Agarwal        S/o     Shri      Badrinarayan    Agarwal,
Registered Office 34, Kalptaru Shopping Centre, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                       ----Respondent/Plaintiff

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babulal Gupta through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandrahas Choudhary through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

19/01/2022

1. Petitioner-defendant has preferred this writ petition inter-alia

praying therein that the order dated 15.04.2015 passed by

Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.5, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby temporary injunction application was

allowed and the order dated 14.02.2018 passed by Additional

District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the

appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed be quashed

and set aside.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-defendant that

plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction. In

(2 of 3) [CW-6067/2018]

the suit, respondent claimed that he has right of way through

Khasra No.1194 belonging to the petitioner. It is also contended

that the Court below has erred in allowing the injunction

application when admittedly there was no way mentioned in the

revenue record of Khasra No.1194. It is further contended that the

alternate way is available to the plaintiff-respondent which fact

was also overlooked by the appellate Court. It is also contended

that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss

has wrongly been held in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has opposed the writ

petition. It is contended that plaintiff-respondent has specifically

pleaded in his writ petition that from time of the earlier owner,

there was a way existing in Khasra No.1194. The said way was

used by the plaintiff-respondent for last twenty years to go to his

crusher. It is also contended that the fact that alternate way is

available was not established before the Court and therefore, the

Court below allowed the application for temporary injunction. It is

further contended that the suit was filed way back in 2014,

plaintiff-respondent has completed the evidence in 2019 and the

matter is now fixed for the evidence of defendant-petitioner. It is

further contended that the revenue record as submitted by the

defendant-petitioner does not point to any alternate way to reach

to the respondent's crusher.

4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the

impugned orders.

5. From perusal of the impugned orders and the report of

Patwari Halka, Bilonchi, it is evident that in the revenue record, no

way is mentioned, however, it is mentioned that for going to the

Khasra number belonging to the plaintiff-respondent, there is a

(3 of 3) [CW-6067/2018]

way through Khasra No.1192 and 1193/1811, but the same is not

mentioned in record. Since the plaintiff-respondent is running a

crusher and as per the material before the trial Court, it was being

used by the plaintiff-respondent from a long time. Court below has

not done any illegality in allowing the injunction application of the

plaintiff-respondent and has not committed any error so as to

invoke the writ jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, present Writ Petition is dismissed.

7. However, any observation made by this Court shall not come

in the way of the trial Court while deciding the suit. Trial Court is

directed to expedite the disposal of the writ petition.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA /16

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)