[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kuldeep Singh Alias Hemsingh vs Smt. Mali (2026:Rj-Jd:4272) on 22 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:4272]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20879/2025
1. Kuldeep Singh Alias Hemsingh S/o Rameshwar Singh,
Aged About 38 Years, Ward No-7, Near Tel Depot, Udasar,
Bikaner.
2. Rameshwar Singh S/o Jagmal Singh, Aged About 65
Years, Ward No-7, Near Tel Depot, Udasar, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Puspa Devi W/o Durgadas, Lakhotiyo Ka Chowk,
Bikaner.
2. Trio Investment Company, Through Director Anil Pareek
S/o Purshottam Pareek, Resident Of Pareek Chowk,
Bikaner.
3. Anil Pareek S/o Purshottam Pareek, Pareek Chowk,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20851/2025
1. Kuldeep Singh Alias Hemsingh S/o Shri Rameshwar
Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 7,
Near Tel Depot, Udasar, Bikaner.
2. Rameshwar Singh S/o Jagmal Singh, Aged About 65
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 7, Near Tel Depot, Udasar,
Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Anita W/o Shri Pratap Singh, Resident Of Near Police
Line, Bikaner.
2. Trio Investment Company, Through Director Shri Anil
Pareek S/o Shri Purshottam Pareek, Resident Of Pareek
Chowk, Bikaner.
3. Anil Pareek S/o Purshottam Pareek, Resident Of Pareek
Chowk, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20880/2025
1. Kuldeep Singh Alias Hemsingh S/o Rameshwar Singh,
Aged About 38 Years, Ward No-7, Near Tel Depot, Udasar,
Bikaner.
2. Rameshwar Singh S/o Jagmal Singh, Aged About 65
Years, Ward No-7, Near Tel Depot, Udasar, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Mali W/o Mohanlal, Police Line, Bikaner.
2. Trio Investment Company, Through Director Anil Pareek
S/o Purshottam Pareek, Resident Of Pareek Chowk,
Bikaner.
3. Anil Pareek S/o Purshottam Pareek, Pareek Chowk,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 12:36:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/01/2026 at 08:31:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4272] (2 of 8) [CW-20879/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishank Madhan
Mr. Ritik Gehlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukul Krishna Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
22/01/2026
1. The present writ petitions arise out of the orders dated
15.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Bikaner ("the
learned trial Court"), whereby application filed by respondent-
plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC were allowed, and
directions were issued to the petitioner-defendant not to
dispossess the respondent-plaintiff without due process of law.
The petitioners have also challenged orders dated
13.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge No. 5, Bikaner ("the learned lower Appellate Court")
whereby appeal preferred by petitioner-defendant under Order 43
Rule 1 CPC were dismissed and orders dated 15.09.2025 were
upheld.
The applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC though by
different parties but based on the same facts and even the
defence taken in the reply by the respondents were also same.
The learned courts below has decided the said applications by
similar orders, hence it is deemed appropriate to decide these
three writ petitions by common judgment. For deciding the
controversy, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20879/2025
(Kuldeep Singh & Anr. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi & Ors.) are being
taken into consideration.
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 12:36:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4272] (3 of 8) [CW-20879/2025]
2. Explaining the brief facts, it is stated that respondent No. 1-
plaintiff preferred an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
CPC along with the suit seeking a decree of injunction, stating
therein that a plot situated in a colony named Triao Nagar, located
at Chak 12 BSM, Village Udasar was purchased through a
registered sale deed. The plaintiff stated that although the plot in
question owned through registered sale deeds, the defendants
were trying to dispossess the plaintiff and to sell the same plot to
other persons. On the basis of said pleadings, a prayer for
temporary injunction was made.
3. Reply was filed denying the averments made in application,
stating therein that the land in question was purchased by Shri
Rameshwar Singh, who thereafter got the same converted under
Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act by following due
procedure prescribed under law.It is further stated that all the
charges were being paid by Mr. Rameshwar Singh only. While
referring to the documents relating to conversion, it was stated
that plaintiff does not have any right and possession over the land
in question and thus, application be dismissed.
4. Learned Trial Court, while considering the material available
on record, observed that although defendants claimed to have
converted the land for residential purposes, the plaintiff had
placed on record a registered sale deed to prima facie establish
ownership over the plot in question. So also other documents
including photographs were placed on record to establish that
plaintiff as well as other purchasers in the Triao Nagar Colony are
residing thereon after constructing their residential houses.
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 12:36:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4272] (4 of 8) [CW-20879/2025]
On the basis of said documents, learned trial Court decided
the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and
irreparable injury in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and allowed
the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC vide order dated
15.09.2025.
5. Challenging order dated 15.09.2025, the petitioner preferred
an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. Learned lower Appellate
Court, upon considering the documents available on record, held
that in view of rival claims of the parties, various disputed
questions arose for adjudication, which could be decided only after
completion of the trial.
Learned lower Appellate Court, while concurring with the
view expressed by the learned trial Court, observed that issues of
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury
were rightly decided by learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff
and accordingly, vide order dated 13.10.2025, dismissed appeal
preferred by the petitioners and upheld the order dated
15.09.2025.
6. Challenging the said orders, learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that both the courts below failed to properly appreciate
the documents placed on record by petitioner-defendant. It was
contended that in the report prepared by revenue authorities
during conversion proceedings, land in question was shown to be
vacant and therefore, same was not in possession of plaintiff.
6.1. It is further contended that lower Appellate Court has neither
considered documents of petitioners nor decided the grounds
raised in the memo of appeal.
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 12:36:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4272] (5 of 8) [CW-20879/2025]
6.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the
protection was granted in favour of the plaintiff merely on the
basis of a sale deed, which itself is disputed. It was also
contended that the learned courts below, while relying upon the
photographs which do not pertain to the land owned by the
petitioners have allowed the application under Order 43 Rules 1
and 2 CPC in favour of the respondents which is not justified.
7. On the other hand, counsel for respondent supported the
orders passed by the learned courts below and stated that as a
matter of fact, the pleadings of the parties, documents available
on record as well as grounds raised were duly taken into account
by the learned courts below and perfectly just, valid and reasoned
orders have been passed. It is stated that there had been
concurrent findings of both the courts below and interference of
this Court is not warranted.
7.1. Counsel for the respondent also stated that learned trial
Court while relying upon registered sale deed of the plot as well as
while taking into account the photographs showing the residential
house existing upon the said plot has rightly protected the rights
of the plaintiff and restrained the respondent not to dispossess the
plaintiff without due process of law and the said order is perfectly
justified to balance the equities between parties as well as to
avoid the multiplicities of proceedings in future. Counsel for the
respondents thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
9. Bare perusal of the order passed by learned trial Court shows
that the Court took into account the registered sale deed executed
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 12:36:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4272] (6 of 8) [CW-20879/2025]
in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plot in question, as well
as the photographs showing existence of residential houses of the
plaintiff and other plot holders in Triao Nagar Colony. The Court
held that, in view of such prima facie proof of possession based
upon a title conveyed thorugh a registered sale deed, the plaintiffs
were rightly held entitled to interim protection.
10. Learned trial Court also considered the rival claims of the
petitioner-defendant based on the alleged conversion carried out
at the instance of the defendant. However, the Court recorded a
finding that the dispute regarding the location of the land said to
have been converted by the defendant, as well as the authority of
the seller who sold the plot in favour of the plaintiff, could only be
adjudicated after the evidence is led during the trial.
On the basis of the finding, the learned Trial Court directed
that respondent shall not be dispossessed from her residential
house without due process of law. This Court finds that no
illegality has been committed by learned trial Court while passing
such order.
11. Argument of the counsel for petitioner that documents filed
by petitioner were not taken into account by the learned lower
Appellate Court is misconceived. As a matter of fact, the learned
lower Appellate Court not only recorded the facts as averred by
the respective parties but also formulated the questions arising
out of the rival claims, which could be decided only after recording
the evidence of both sides during the trial. Learned lower
Appellate Court clearly recorded its concurrence with the
observations made by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal
preferred by petitioner.
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 12:36:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4272] (7 of 8) [CW-20879/2025]
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that due to non-
consideration of the documents and contentions raised by
petitioner by the learned lower Appellate Court, the matter should
be remanded to the learned lower Appellate Court for fresh
adjudication.
This argument of counsel for petitioner is devoid of any
merit. A bare reading of the order dated 13.10.2025 clearly shows
that all the facts and grounds raised by respective parties were
duly considered by learned lower Appellate Court. Since no error is
found to have been committed by learned lower appellate Court in
passing the said order, the said prayer of the petitioners does not
deserve acceptance.
13. In the present case, learned trial Court granted justified
protection in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants not to
dispossess plaintiff without due process of law which is absolutely
justified to balance equities between the parties pending
adjudication of trial.
14. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings on
all three issues which are required to be considered by a Court
before granting a temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff. The
petitioner has failed to establish any error apparent on the face of
the record or any jurisdictional error being committed by the
learned trial Court in passing the order impugned, warranting the
interference of this Court. The scope of interference by this Court
under its supervisory jurisdiction is very limited. The contours of
Article 227 of the Constitution of India have well being delineated
ad nauseum and reference may be made for the purpose to some
salutary pronouncements such as Shalini Shyam Shetty v.
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 12:36:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4272] (8 of 8) [CW-20879/2025]
Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329. Jai Singh v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 385. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram
Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 - instead of burdening this
judgment with copious quotes therefrom. It has been broadly held
therein that the interlocutory orders of the courts below not be
interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
unless such orders are palpably vitiated by capriciousness,
perversity, error of jurisdiction or such like root causes leading to
manifest injustice. The amendment to Section 115 CPC effective
1.7.2002 vide the Code of Civil Procedure (Amended) Act, 1999
was intended to be a prescription to overcome delays in trials of
civil suits which delays are notorious and adversely commented on
publically. The salutary provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution
of India cannot be allowed to be casually invoked to circumvent
legislative intent clear from the CPC amendment effective
1.7.2002. No doubt the court's supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 is ever present but its exercise has to be guarded and
confined to situations referred to above. None of the aforesaid
situations obtain in the instant case.
15. In view of the observations made above, no ground for
interference by this Court is made out.
16. The present writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
17. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
21-23/praveen/-
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 12:36:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
