Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 696 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal Ojha v. Devi Lal Pujari (Brahmin)

2011-04-01

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of filing present misc. appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 (r) CPC, the appellants are challenging the order dated 03.02.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.04/2011, whereby, the learned trial court rejected the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the appellants for temporary injunction. 2. As per facts of the case, a suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the villagers in the representative capacity of village Bagore, Tehsil and District Bhilwara, in which, it is submitted that respondent Devi Lal is raising construction upon the public land. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though construction permission has been granted, but respondent-defendant is not raising construction over the land, upon which, the construction permission has been granted. Further, it is submitted that the land in question is a public land and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial court, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and respondent-defendant may be restrained from raising construction upon the disputed land till dismissal of the suit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. 5. First of all, it is observed by the trial court that now construction is complete. Further, it is obvious from the pleadings that this suit has been filed by the villagers having no title of the land and they are raising public grievance. The learned trial court after obtaining report from Commissioner found that no prima face case is made out and rejected the application filed by the appellants for temporary injunction. The finding given by the trial court is based upon the reasons and documentary evidence, which is placed on record and upon the fact that construction was raised upon 30x20 ft. of land and no inconvenience will be caused to anybody in the village. 6. In my opinion, such finding does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the misc. appeal is dismissed. However, it is expected from the trial court to decide the suit itself within a period of six months.Appeal Dismissed. *******