Suraj Kumar vs Khem Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:42679)
2025 Latest Caselaw 13594 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 13594 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 September, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Suraj Kumar vs Khem Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:42679) on 23 September, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:42679]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2003/2022

Suraj Kumar S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
Bankiya Bera, Mata Ka Than Road, Magra Poojla, Jodhpur.
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
1.       Khem Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh Gehlot, R/o 49, Kirti
         Nagar D, Magra Poonjla, Jodhpur.
2.       Dikshika D/o Sh. Khem Singh, R/o House No. 49, Kirti
         Nagar D, Magra Poonjla, Jodhpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Falgun Buch
                                 Ms. Simram Mehta
                                 Mr. Vishal Singh
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Jog Singh Bhati



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

23/09/2025

1. The present civil misc appeal has been filed by the appellant

with the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur may be quashed and set aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC preferred by the appellant may kindly be allowed.

Any other order/relief which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be issued in favor of the appellant."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a civil suit

for declaration and permanent injunction concerning plots No. 7

and 8, which he used as a godown for his tent business. In 2014,

to expand his business, the appellant borrowed Rs. 2 lakhs from

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 03:21:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42679] (2 of 4) [CMA-2003/2022]

respondent No.1, who took the property papers of the plots as

security and was given a general power of attorney, an agreement

to sell, and a will related to plot No.8. In 2021, the appellant

offered to repay the loan in full and requested the return of the

documents and cancellation of the power of attorney. However,

respondent No.1 refused to do the same. The appellant then

issued a notice on 26.03.2021 revoking the power of attorney, but

respondent No.1 still did not return the documents. Subsequently,

on 22.02.2022, respondent No.1 sold the plots to respondent

No.2, his daughter, and falsely claimed in an affidavit that the

power of attorney had not been revoked. The appellant challenged

this sale deed as void ab initio and sought a declaration to that

effect, along with an injunction to prevent the respondents from

interfering with his possession. After hearing the parties, the

learned trial court vide order dated 03.11.2022 has dismissed the

appellant's application for temporary injunction. Hence, the

present appeal.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents

respectfully submits that the issue raised in the present writ

petition is squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court rendered in the case of Suraj Kumar vs. Khem

Singh & Anr., SBCWP No.17059/2022, decided on

21.12.2022, wherein identical controversy was involved and in

that case, the writ petition was unambiguously dismissed, and

since the facts and legal position in the present case are pari

materia with those in Suraj Kumar (supra), judicial discipline

requires that the same view be adopted here. He submits that the

present writ petition also deserves to be dismissed accordingly in

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 03:21:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42679] (3 of 4) [CMA-2003/2022]

terms of the binding precedent laid down by the Co-ordinate

Bench. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced

hereunder:-

"The trial court without going into the material available on record, specially the fact that agreement to sell pertaining to the suit property, wherein, full consideration had already been received, was in existence, existence thereof was not denied in replication by the plaintiff, the document also indicated handing over of the possession and it was the specific plea of the defendants that besides the fact that they are in possession of the suit property, they have also raised construction and, therefore, the trial court by referring to a singular fact regarding agreement to sell being of Rs.6,50,000/- and sale deed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2, his daughter, at Rs.4 lakhs only found prima facie case. The appellate court besides taking into consideration the aspect of execution of sale deed at a lower consideration, found that other overwhelming evidence clearly indicated that the defendants besides payment of full consideration to the plaintiff were in possession of the suit property and that no relief of possession has been sought in the suit and consequently found that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The said determination made by the appellate court cannot be faulted, which is in consonance with the material available on record as well as the legal position governing the subject matter.

So far as the submissions made that the appellate court by relying on the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, 1882 could not have set aside the order of maintaining status quo by the trial court is concerned, unless the court dealing with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff applicant/party, the grant of status quo order merely because, apparently, it does not hurt anybody cannot be countenanced. If such a plea is accepted then in that case, in every case, irrespective of its merit, status quo order has to be granted and if granted, must be supported by the appellate court, which is not the correct legal position as even for seeking/maintaining the order for grant of status quo, a party has to make out a prima facie case in its favour.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the order dated 3/11/2022 (Annex.14) passed by the appellate court is made out. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed."

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 03:21:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42679] (4 of 4) [CMA-2003/2022]

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, with utmost candor,

concedes that he is unable to dispute the aforesaid submission

and further points out that in the identical controversy, the writ

petition filed by him was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench in

the aforesaid judgment.

5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

respondents that the controversy raised in the present appeal

stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Suraj Kumar (supra) and the

candid concession made by learned counsel for the appellant that