JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) the impugned order dated 08.09.2020 (Ann.9) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Parbatsar District Nagaur and order dated 01.12.2022 (Ann.10) passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Parbatsar District Nagaur may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondent no.1 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondent no.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge, (S.D.), Parbatsar, Nagaur, and stated that a Salt Udhyog, namely, M/s.Riddhi Siddhi Namak Udhyog, was running in Nawa City, Nagaur; the said Firm is a partnership Firm, and Suman Devi, Bhanwari Devi, Urmila Devi were equal partners in the Firm. After dissolution of the Firm, Suman Devi became the sole proprietor of the Firm, and started her business over the land of khasra no. 622 (new khasra no. 1988/1805) and khasra no.1013/622 (new khasra no. 1172) at Village Nawan Tehsil Nagaur; despite the retirement of the co-sharers (partners of the Firm), they are interfering in the business, and therefore, in the suit, a restraint was sought. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The petitioners-defendants filed the written statement to the said suit. 2.1. The learned Court below vide order dated 31.01.2020 denied the grant of interim relief. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge No.1, Parbatsar, Nagaur. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The petitioners-defendants filed the written statement to the said suit. 2.1. The learned Court below vide order dated 31.01.2020 denied the grant of interim relief. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge No.1, Parbatsar, Nagaur. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 17.03.2020, granted the injunction and restrained the petitioners from interfering in the operation of the salt business in question; whereafter, the petitioners preferred a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 5571/2020, decided on 06.08.2020) before this Hon’ble Court, wherein the Hon’ble Court directed the learned Court below to decide the temporary injunction application expeditiously, and till then, the parties were directed to maintain status quo, as existed on that date, regarding the land(s) in question. 2.2. Thereafter, the learned Court below, upon hearing both the parties, allowed the temporary injunction application of the respondent no.1 vide the impugned order dated 08.09.2020, and restrained the petitioners from interfering in the business of the respondent no.1. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before learned Additional District Judge No.1, Parbatsar, Nagaur, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 01.12.2022. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent had prepared a forged partnership dissolution deed, because the said deed was dated 01.04.1995, whereas the same was attested by notary public on 27.03.1995, which clearly reflects that the respondent no.1 has made forged signature of others partners. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent committed a fraud with the petitioners, while preparing the forged partnership dissolution deed, Form-E and Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1-Smt. Bhanwari Devi. It was also submitted that the petitioners filed a complaint in this connection before the Police Station, Nagaur under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, and after due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent- Firm. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have also filed an application before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nagaur for transfer of the shares, and therefore, the entire factual matrix of the case, clearly shows that the petitioners took all necessary lawful actions against the respondent. 3.3. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have also filed an application before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nagaur for transfer of the shares, and therefore, the entire factual matrix of the case, clearly shows that the petitioners took all necessary lawful actions against the respondent. 3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors Vs Ram Sukhi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 733 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that after dissolution of the Firm, on 20.09.2014, Smt. Bhanwari Devi, and on 01.05.2012 Smt. Urmila Devi & Smt. Chhoti Devi submitted a consent letter and an affidavit before the competent authority, in favour of Smt. Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm, whereupon the objections were invited, but no objection was ever received, more particularly, from the present petitioners; thereafter, a gazette notification dated 05.04.2018 was published in favour of Smt.Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm. 4.1. It was further submitted that Smt. Suman Devi is the proprietor of the respondent-Firm, which is proved by the receipt issued against payment of the electricity bills, and due depositions made to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. 4.2. It was also submitted that Smt. Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm also filed the Income Tax Returns (ITR) from time to time since 1995, and the receipt of the years 2013 to 2020-21 clearly substantiates the said fact. 4.3. It was thus submitted that the learned Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders in favour of the respondent. 5. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the additional affidavit so filed, the respondent never opened any bank account in the name of said Firm nor got issued any PAN Card, and the respondent also did not file any ITR; Smt.Suman Devi, who is claiming herself as the sole proprietor of the respondent-Firm opened another proprietorship Firm with the same name and has shown the ITR filed in relation to that Firm, thereby, projected a false case before the Courts of law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the respondent no.1 filed the aforementioned suit and an application for temporary injunction, whereupon, the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 08.09.2020 allowed the temporary injunction application, while restraining the petitioners from interfering in the business of the respondent no.1. The petitioners preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide the impugned order dated 01.12.2022. 8. This Court further observes that on a prima facie view, it was only after the Firm comprising all four partners was dissolved on 01.04.1995, after due procedure and formalities, that Smt. Suman Devi was declared as the sole proprietor of the respondent-Firm and other partners stood retired. 9. This Court also observes that the affidavits were submitted before the concerned authority (Registrar), in favour of Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm, whereupon objections were invited on 24.03.2018, no objection was received on behalf of the petitioners; thereafter the gazette notification dated 05.04.2018 was published in favour of Smt. Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm, which clearly show that the prima facie the case is made out in the favour of the respondent. 10. This Court further observes that Smt. Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm has also repaid the pending loan, which was obtained from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and also electricity bills show the name of Smt.Suman Devi as the sole proprietor of the respondent-Firm, as well as the Income Tax Returns (ITR) so filed in the name of the respondent-Firm. Therefore, at this stage, the case for temporary injunction in favour of the respondent is made out. 11. This Court also observes that the learned Courts below have rightly granted the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent no.1 because as per the material on record as well as evidence produced, clearly show that if the temporary injunction had not been granted, then the respondent-Firm would have suffered, amongst others, an irreparable loss. 12. This Court is thus of the opinion that the concurrent orders of the two learned Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court in the instant petition. 13. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners does not render any assistance to their case. 14. 12. This Court is thus of the opinion that the concurrent orders of the two learned Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court in the instant petition. 13. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners does not render any assistance to their case. 14. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. 15. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.