Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Asha Manwani vs Pawan Kumar Dugat (2025:Rj-Jd:9128) on 14 February, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:9128]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3565/2025
Asha Manwani D/o The Late Veerumal Manwani, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 107, Second B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar Dugat S/o Satyanarayan, R/o 107, Second
B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Business
Address- Super Star Tailor, Below Rani Ji Temple,
Opposite Electric Substation, Sardarpura B Road, Jodhpur.
2. Municipal Corporation, South Jodhpur, Through
Commissioner.
3. Satyanarayan S/o The Late Nathuram Dugad, R/o C-116,
First Extension, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Prakash Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shridhar Mehta
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
14/02/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India with the following prayers :-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that the present writ petition so preferred by the
petitioner may kindly be allowed and :-
I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
order dated 19.09.2023 passed in original civil case
No.171/2023 and the judgment/order dated
08.08.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.138/2023 may
kindly be quashed and set aside."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the suit for permanent
injunction, damages and mandatory injunction was filed by the
[2025:RJ-JD:9128] (2 of 4) [CW-3565/2025]
petitioner/plaintiff before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan being Suit No.213/2023
stating therein that she is in possession of the property situated at
Second B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur House No.160. It was further
stated that the respondents No.1 and 3 (defendants) are bent
upon to cause damage to the plaintiff's property by raising illegal
wall and are doing commercial activities on their property which is
adjacent to the plaintiff's property. Along with the suit, the
petitioner also filed application for temporary injunction under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Notices were
issued to the respondents and written statement was filed on
behalf of the respondents while denying the averments made in
the application. After completion of the pleading of the parties, the
application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court
vide order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure-3). After rejection of the
application preferred by the petitioner, an appeal was preferred
before the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur
Metropolitan, but the same was also rejected vide order dated
08.08.2024 (Annexure-4). Aggrieved by the orders dated
19.09.2023 (Annexure-3) and 08.08.2024 (Annexure-4), the
petitioner preferred the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC wherein a prayer was
made to restrain the respondent from raising illegal construction
upon the land of the petitioner and also restrain them from raising
any commercial construction as well as commercial activity on the
construction raised by them. He further submits that the petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:9128] (3 of 4) [CW-3565/2025]
has specifically stated that the respondents have raised wall on
the land belonging to the petitioner as they have encroached
about 9 inches to one feet on the land of the petitioner from the
south side of the house. He also submits that as the nature of the
land is not reflected as commercial, therefore, the respondents
ought not to run commercial activities on the said land.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, South Jodhpur, has
specifically submitted in their reply that in case any commercial
activity being run by the respondents, then appropriate action
would be taken against them. He further submits that construction
of the wall is already over and as of now, the respondents are
living in the house, and they are not running any commercial
activity in the house.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. This Court, upon perusal of the impugned order dated
19.09.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Trial Court finds
that the learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the
parties observed that the construction of the wall is already over
and only the finishing work remained and thus has rightly rejected
the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
CPC. Further, from the perusal of the reply filed by the respondent
No.2-Municipal Corporation, South Jodhpur, it is reflected that the
respondent No.2 has categorically stated that in case any
commercial activity is run by the respondents in the premise,
appropriate action would be taken against them. Thus, in the
[2025:RJ-JD:9128] (4 of 4) [CW-3565/2025]
given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find
any reason to grant indulgence in the matter.
7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any,
also stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
42-Ajays/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
