Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 104 (RAJ)

Chigni Devi v. Board of Revenue

2012-01-09

AJAY RASTOGI

body2012
Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—Instant petition is directed against the orders of three revenue courts below rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction filed in the suit for correction of entries and permanent injunction filed before the learned revenue court (SDO). 2. The SDO, while examining the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction u/Sec.212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, observed that the petitioner was not able to make out prima-facie case in absence whereof, the two ingredients namely; irreparable loss and balance of convenience, could not be looked into and accordingly the prayer for interim relief was rejected vide order dt.27.09.2005. Against the rejection of the application for grant of temporary relief, an appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner and the learned Revenue Appellate Court was not satisfied with what was prayed by the petitioner for grant of temporary relief and it was also observed that the petitioner has failed to make out prima-facie case in his favour and that being so, the question of irreparable loss and balance of convenience could not arise for consideration and rejected the appeal while assigning detailed reasons vide order dated 21.10.2005 against which further revision came to be preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2011. 3. All the three revenue courts below have recorded a finding of fact holding that the petitioner was unable to make out a prima facie case in his favour and that being so, the application for grant of temporary injunction has been rejected. 4. Counsel for petitioners has tried to convince this Court that the material which came on record indicates that there was a prima facie case in his favour but that has not been looked into by the courts below while examining the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. 5. 4. Counsel for petitioners has tried to convince this Court that the material which came on record indicates that there was a prima facie case in his favour but that has not been looked into by the courts below while examining the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. 5. Once there is finding of fact being recorded by all the three courts below holding that the petitioners were unable to make out a prima-facie case in his favour and that being so, it will not be appropriate for this Court to sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the finding which has been recorded by the courts below while examining the grievance of the petitioner and at the stage when the application u/Sec.212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has been considered by this Court. After having gone through the orders impugned and hearing counsel for petitioner, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the ld. revenue courts below which may require interference of this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution. However, this Court would like to record that once the discretion has been judiciously exercised by the ld. revenue courts below while examining the application filed for grant of temporary injunction, it is otherwise not required for this Court to interfere. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.