Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 953 (RAJ)

Rama v. Murti Mandir Teja Ji

2016-07-06

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court noticed that both the parties are agreed not to transfer or sell the disputed land and based on the said facts, the application was partly allowed and the respondent was restrained from selling or transferring the suit property. Rest of the application was rejected. 2. The appellant filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking injunction against the respondents from dealing with the suit property and/or raising construction at the site and to maintain status quo. 3. The application was opposed by the respondents and it appears that on 18.12.2015, the parties agreed not to transfer the property in question and the said fact was stated before the Court, on which the Court noticed the same, took signatures of counsel for the parties on the order-sheets and passed the order as noticed hereinbefore. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application to the extent that the appellant has sought status quo regarding the construction at the site and the respondents were raising construction of a temple which if permitted would result in irreparable injury to the appellant and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the order dated 18.12.2015 has been passed with the consent of the parties and the appellant is not entitled to go back on the consent and seek further injunction in the present appeal. 6. Faced with the said submissions, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the consent was limited to the injunction pertaining to sale and transfer of property and the appellant did not consent to rejection of their application qua the status quo as made in the application and therefore, the trial court could not have rejected the prayer made by the appellant. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. A bare perusal of the order-sheet dated 18.12.2015 indicates that submission was made about agreement of the parties regarding not to sale or transfer the disputed land and both the counsels put signatures. 9. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. A bare perusal of the order-sheet dated 18.12.2015 indicates that submission was made about agreement of the parties regarding not to sale or transfer the disputed land and both the counsels put signatures. 9. If now an objection is sought to be raised that the appellant did not give consent for rejection of rest of the stay application, for the said purpose, the appellant has to approach the same Court. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. : AIR 1982 SC 1249 has observed that statement of facts as to what transpired in the Court, the order-sheet of the Court cannot be doubted based on the submissions made and/or affidavit filed and for the said purpose, parties have to approach the same Court. 11. In view thereof, if the appellant wants to dispute the contents of the order dated 18.12.2015 and/or wants to contend that the consent given was limited and not for dismissal of the application seeking status quo, he has to approach the same Court. 12. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed leaving it open for the appellant to approach the trial court.