Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1648 (RAJ)

Hariram v. Moru Devi

2022-05-18

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the appellate court') whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.1, Barmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') on an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC whereby, the parties were directed to maintain status quo till the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit before the trial court seeking permanent injunction claiming that a piece of land was purchased by her father-in-law and later on the same was transferred in her name, but the petitioner-defendant is trying to encroach over the said piece of land, therefore, he may be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff by way of issuing permanent injunction. 3. Along with the said suit, an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC is also filed. Reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant wherein, it was claimed that as a matter of fact, the father-in-law of the respondent-plaintiff was owner of one of the plots and not the owner of the entire land. In support of the above contention, the petitioner-defendant has furnished copies of the agreement to sale executed in favour of him and the other persons and has also placed on record certain documents claiming that in one of the complaints initiated at the instance of the husband of the respondent-plaintiff, the police has clearly opined that the documents on which the respondentplaintiff is placing reliance are forged one. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the parties concerned has come to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff is able to prove prima facie case in her favour as also the balance of convenience in her favour. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the parties concerned has come to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff is able to prove prima facie case in her favour as also the balance of convenience in her favour. The trial court while partly allowing the temporary application has directed the parties to maintain status quo as it exists on the date of passing of the order till the pendecy of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved with the temporary injuction order passed by the trial court, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate court, however, the appellate court after hearing counsel for the parties has affirmed the order passed by the trial court on the temporary injuction application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie case before the trial court and, in such circumstances, the trial court has illegally passed the order on the temporary injuction application and directed the parties to maintain status quo till the pendency of the suit. It is further submitted that the petitioner-defendant has proved before both the courts below by producing documentary evidence that the patta in question, on which, the respondentplaintiff is placing reliance is forged one and the whole piece of land is not in possession of the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent- plaintiff has sufficiently proved before the trial court as well as the appellate court by producing documentary evidence of this effect that the petitioner-defendant is in possession of the land in question on the basis of valid documents whereas, the respondent-plaintiff is claiming right over the disputed property on the basis of forged documents. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that impugned orders passed by both the courts below are illegal and the same are liable to be set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 8. The trial court after carefully scrutinizing the documentary evidence produced by the parties concerned has come to the conclusion that admittedly, dispute is going on between the parties in respect of the land in question from last so many years and several criminal cases have been filed on behalf of the parties against each other. 8. The trial court after carefully scrutinizing the documentary evidence produced by the parties concerned has come to the conclusion that admittedly, dispute is going on between the parties in respect of the land in question from last so many years and several criminal cases have been filed on behalf of the parties against each other. It is also observed by the trial court that both the parties have placed reliance on the agreements, which are in their possession and to examine the correctness and genuineness of those documents, evidence is required, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that all the parties shall maintain status quo with respect of the land in question till pendency of the suit. 9. The appellate court has also affirmed the order passed by the trial court making similar observations. 10. Having gone through the material available on record, upon perusal of the impugned orders passed by both the courts below and taking into consideration material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. 11. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Stay petition is also dismissed.