Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 727 (RAJ)

Basti Ram v. Shanti

2017-03-09

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12.01.2017 and the order dated 13.12.2016 whereby the applications seeking Temporary Injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC have been rejected by the Trial Court and so also by the Appellate Court. 2. Mr. M.S. Purohit counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has erred in observing that the plaintiff-petitioner has not placed on record, the order of the allotment. To support his contention, he has placed before the Court, for perusal, a copy of the order dated 24.10.1993 and submitted that the same was very much there in the record of the Trial Court. In light of the said contention, he urged that the Courts below have erred in deciding the issue of prima facie case, which was very much in favour of the petitioner- plaintiff. 3. A perusal of the copy of the order dated 24.10.1993, reveals that it is not a letter of allotment, rather it is a letter of sanctioning allotment in favour of the petitioner, subject to fulfilling certain conditions. 4. It is not in dispute that after issuance of the order dated 24.10.1993, the petitioner deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 3510/- on 18.02.2013, which included allotment money as well as penalty amount. As such, at least till depositing the amount on 18.02.2013, it cannot be said that any substantive right, much less ownership right on the subject plot had accrued to the petitioner. As such petitioner has no Title document in his favour whereas the defendants admittedly have such Title Document though the same was under challenge. 5. In considered the view of this Court, both the courts have rightly decided the application for Temporary Injunction, inasmuch as the defendants-respondents have a document of title in their favour and at this stage, it would be not proper to restrain the defendants from their legitimate right to enjoy and use the property. 6. Mr. M.S. Purohit made an alternative prayer that till pendency of the suit, Defendant-Respondent may be restrained from creating third party rights; for which prayer, the Court feels that no order is required, in the facts of the present case. 7. In light of the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer Property Act and principle lis pendense. 8. 6. Mr. M.S. Purohit made an alternative prayer that till pendency of the suit, Defendant-Respondent may be restrained from creating third party rights; for which prayer, the Court feels that no order is required, in the facts of the present case. 7. In light of the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer Property Act and principle lis pendense. 8. There is no force in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed hereby.