Damodar Sharma vs Bhagat Ram And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 6111 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:29454]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5929/2016

Damodar Sharma S/o Late Shri Badri Narayan Sharma R/o Babu
Ka Teeb, Heeda Ki Mori Ka Samne, Chokdi Modi Khana, Hajuri,
Jaipur
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.       Bhagat Ram S/o Shri Gandi Lal, H. No. 1267, Kho Walo
         Ka Chowk, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Jaipur
2.       Shri Syed Abid Ali S/o Shri Syed Abdul Salim, H.no. 3528,
         Syed Manzil Mithi Kothi, Surajpol, Chokdi Top Khana,
         Hajuri, Jaipur
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. R.P. Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 17/10/2023

Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the

order dated 19.09.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.8,

Jaipur Metropolitan in T.I. Application No.78/2014, whereby

temporary injunction application filed by the appellant under Order

39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court

has wrongly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed

by the appellant vide order dated 19.09.2016. Learned counsel for

the appellant also submits that appellant had filed a suit for

preemption and permanent injunction. Learned counsel for the

appellant also submits that admittedly in the property-in-question,

the appellant have right of preemption on account of common

[2023:RJ-JP:29454] (2 of 3) [CMA-5929/2016]

chowk, poll, Stair case, Chaubatra etc. Respondent No.1 had not

given any notice before selling the disputed property to

respondent No.2. So, order of the trial court be set aside and

respondents be directed not to sell the disputed property

furthermore.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and

submitted that there is no common chowk, stair case etc. So, right

of preemption did not accrue to the appellant. Learned counsel for

the respondents also submitted that appellant knew the fact

regarding sale of house-in-question in November, 2012. Learned

counsel for the respondents also submitted that in police

proceedings, it has come that the respondent No.2 had given offer

to the appellant to purchase the disputed property if he pays the

amount equivalent to the amount paid by him (respondent No.2)

to the respondent No.1, but appellant did not want to purchase

the disputed property. So, trial court rightly dismissed the

temporary injunction application filed by the appellant. So, appeal

be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the

respondents.

Trial court while deciding the temporary injunction

application clearly mentioned that it does not appear that any

notice was given by the respondent No.1 to the appellant under

Section 8 of Rajasthan Preemption Act. It is an admitted position

that property-in-question and appellant's property had common

roof, Stair case etc. Respondent No.2 in police proceeding offered

[2023:RJ-JP:29454] (3 of 3) [CMA-5929/2016]

appellant to purchase the disputed property on payment of sale

consideration which was given by him to respondent No.1 but

appellant had not shown any interest regarding it. So, in my

considered opinion, trial court rightly dismissed the temporary

injunction application filed by the appellant. So, present appeal

being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands

dismissed accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /71

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)