[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sourabh vs Satya Narayan (2026:Rj-Jd:14483) on 23 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14483]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 679/2026
Sourabh S/o Suraj Prakash, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of
Lohawat Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi, Proprietor Of
Balajai Hp Gas, Rural Distributor, Lohawat Bisnawas.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Satya Narayan S/o Jagmal Ram, Resident Of Village
Lohawat Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi.
2. Lakshman Ram S/o Satya Narayan, Resident Of Village
Lohawat Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi.
3. Ramesh S/o Ashok Kumar, Resident Of Village Lohawat
Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi.
4. Birbal Ram S/o Ramu Ram, Resident Of Village Lohawat
Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
23/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner-plaintiff assailing the order dated 07.01.2026 (Annx.8)
passed by the Additional District Judge, Phalodi in Civil Misc.
Appeal No. 04/2025 (Sourabh vs. Satya Narayan & Ors.), vide
which the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the Order
dated 20.01.2025 (Annx.5) passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.1,
Phalodi in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/2024 (C.I.S. No. 12/2024)
(Sourabh vs. Satya Narayan & Ors.) dismissing the application
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:13:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14483] (2 of 5) [CW-679/2026]
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., has
been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned
orders passed by the courts below are arbitrary, perverse and
contrary to the settled principles of law governing the adjudication
of applications for temporary injunction.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner instituted a civil
suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, and recovery of
damages, and also moved an application for temporary injunction
to protect the construction of a Gas Godown, which serves a public
utility, till the final disposal of the suit.
5. It is contended that the report submitted by the Patwari is
wholly inadmissible, as the same was not approved by the
Tehsildar, who has duly verified the existence and boundaries of
the land in question. The petitioner purchased the disputed land
forming part of Khasra No. 163 from respondent No. 1, and
possession thereof was duly handed over, pursuant to which the
petitioner after obtaining necessary NOCs/permissions and
conversion order etc., raised construction and established LPG Gas
Godown in accordance with law. The petitioner has placed on
record relevant documents, including the sale deed, revenue map,
and conversion order etc. permitting commercial construction of a
LPG Gas Godown. However, the courts below have failed to
consider these documents issued by competent authorities and
have instead placed reliance solely on the report of the Patwari,
who is subordinate to the Tehsildar.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:13:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14483] (3 of 5) [CW-679/2026]
6. It is further submitted that the dispute, if any, relates only to
demarcation of boundaries, which is presently pending
adjudication before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The courts below
have failed to apply the settled principles governing the grant of
temporary injunction. It is well settled that establishing a prima
facie case requires only the existence of a bona fide substantial
question and not conclusive proof of title. Temporary injunctions
are preventive in nature and do not entail a determination on
merits. Prior to refusing such relief, the courts are required to
consider the likelihood of irreparable injury and to balance the
comparative convenience of the parties.
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the following decisions :-
i. Babu Lal and Others vs. Vijay Solvex
Limited and Others reported in (2014) 16
Supreme Court Cases 680;
ii. Peer Gulam Jilani vs. Peer Gulam Naseer
and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10770-10772 of
2013) decided on 24.07.2019;
iii. Narendra Singh Rajawat & Ors. vs. Thakur
Mohan Singh Kanota & Ors. reported in RLW
2002(3) (Raj) 1840;
iv. Dalpat Kumar and another vs. Prahlad
Singh and others reported in (1992) 1
Supreme Court Cases 719; and
v. Janki Devi (Smt.) vs. Santosh Kumar
reported in 2007 Supreme (Raj) 1603.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1
on caveat, while supporting the impugned orders passed by the
courts below, submits that the petitioner has already vacated the
disputed premises and shifted his business elsewhere i.e. Khasra
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:13:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14483] (4 of 5) [CW-679/2026]
No. 2915/2911, and therefore, no cause survives for grant of
temporary injunction. It is further contended that both the courts
below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, which do not call
for interference by this Court. Learned counsel also submits that
the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is limited and supervisory in nature, and in the absence of
any jurisdictional error or perversity, the impugned orders do not
warrant interference.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case and the
judgments cited by the petitioner.
10. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record,
as well as the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court is of the view
that without entering into the merits of the case or examining the
correctness of the impugned orders passed by the courts below,
the present writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate
directions in the interest of justice.
11. From a perusal of the material on record, it prima facie
reveals that subject land was purchased by the petitioner from
respondent No. 1 and after obtaining necessary NOCs/permissions
and conversion order, LPG Godown was established on subject
land. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the
application for temporary injunction before the trial Court as well
as during the pendency of the appeal, interim injunction was
granted in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 22.08.2024
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:13:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14483] (5 of 5) [CW-679/2026]
(Annx.3) and 17.02.2025 (Annx.7), and the same remained
operative for a considerable period.
12. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
and considering that the main suit is still pending adjudication, it
is deemed appropriate to direct the trial Court to expedite the
proceedings of the suit and decide the same finally, strictly in
accordance with law, preferably within a period of one year from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. It is further directed that till the final disposal of the suit, the
petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land/property in
question.
14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial Court shall decide
the suit uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
16. Stay petition as well as all pending application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
34-/Inder//-
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:13:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
