Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1335 (RAJ)

Jagdish S/o Shri Bhorya v. Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Shri Kailash Meena

2025-06-13

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2025
Order : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer) [for short ‘the learned court below’] in T.I. Application No.101/2024, Jagdish Vs. Manoj Kumar Meena & Ors., and to allow the application for temporary injunction filed by him and also to restrain the defendants to maintain the status quo regarding the suit property bearing Khasra No.482/2013. 2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the plaintiff/appellant on 24.06.2024 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents along-with an application for temporary injunction stating that the land bearing Khasra No.482/2013 measuring 0.4006 hectare and the other land is in his ownership as it is in his tenancy. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is residing with his joint family. The defendant No.1 is grandson of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is son of the plaintiff. In December 2019, the plaintiff and his family decided to start a Petrol Pump in his land and the plaintiff discussed about that with the defendant No.1, who suggested that Rambabu Gupta and Ramavtar Sharma having experience for installing the Petrol Pump, therefore, the defendant No.1 gave suggestion to the plaintiff that Rambabu Gupta and Ramavtar Sharma will help for installing the Petrol Pump but some consideration will be charged by them. In such circumstances a Power of Attorney dated 09.01.2020 was executed at 11 th hour, because everything was done in hurry and even the plaintiff had no occasion to find out this fact that what document was being executed by the plaintiff. In such circumstances by way of misrepresentation, the defendant No.4 and her husband got the gift deed dated 09.01.2020, though the said gift deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1 but the plaintiff was never interested to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendant No.1 because the other sons and grandsons are also residing with the plaintiff, therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff for executing the alleged gift deed dated 09.01.2020. Even on the basis of above gift deed and by way of misrepresentation, the defendant No.4, her husband Akshay Gupta, Rambabu Gupta and Ramavtar Sharma, an order for conversion dated 01.06.2020 was also passed by the Jaipur Development Authority, though the said order dated 01.06.2020 was passed in the name of defendant No.1 but again in an illegal manner. Above persons namely; Akshay gupta, Rambabu Gupta and Ramavtar Sharma committed conspiracy and they obtained a consent letter which was not bearing any date. The said consent letter was allegedly executed by the defendant No.1 whereby it was requested that the patta of the suit land should be issued in the name of the defendants No.1 and 4 but subsequently the said consent letter was again changed and another consent letter dated 22.03.2023 was obtained from the defendant No.1, whereby it was requested that the lease deed regarding suit land should be issued in the name of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3, but since above persons made plan to grab the land of the plaintiff. Therefore, despite specific consent letter dated 22.03.2023, lease deed dated 22.03.2023 was issued by the Jaipur Development Authority only in the name of defendant No.3, whereas according to the consent letter dated 22.03.2023, the lease deed was to be issued in the name of the defendants No.1 and 3 and in such circumstances the defendant No.3 and her choice persons made plan to commit conspiracy to grab the land of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that on the basis of above lease deed, false undertaking and false documents were submitted by the defendants No.3 and 4 in the Office of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation for making allotment of retail outlet. In further of above illegal proceedings, the defendants No. 3 and 4 obtained the LLP agreement dated 14.03.2023 and the defendants No. 3 and 4 made efforts to dispossess the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the defendant No.4 and her husband are high up persons and by taking law in their hands they have made efforts to dispossess the plaintiff. It was also submitted that the plaintiff is lawful owner of the suit land, therefore, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss lies in his favour. 3. The defendants/respondents No.1 to 2 filed separate written statement and the defendants No.3 and 4 filed joint written statement. It was also submitted that the plaintiff is lawful owner of the suit land, therefore, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss lies in his favour. 3. The defendants/respondents No.1 to 2 filed separate written statement and the defendants No.3 and 4 filed joint written statement. The defendants No.3 and 4 while denying the averments stated that the plaintiff has executed the registered gift deed. Therefore, on the basis of the said registered gift deed, the impugned order of conversion was passed and the lease deed was issued, in which there was no illegality in any manner and prayed to dismiss the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff. 4. The learned court below vide order dated 09.07.2024 dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 5. The plaintiff/appellant aggrieved with rejection of his application for temporary injunction vide its order dated 09.07.2024 has preferred this civil misc. appeal. 6. Mr. Prahlad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that the plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and has prayed that the gift deed dated 09.01.2020 along-with subsequent proceedings in favour of defendant/respondent No.1- Manoj Kumar Meena may be declared void and ineffective and the defendants may restrained in making any kind of construction over the land/plot in question. Counsel further submitted that the learned court below while disposing the application for temporary injunction has come to the conclusion that the issue of prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and the said findings and observations have not been challenged by the respondents/defendants. Counsel further submitted that once the court below has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/appellant, the court below was under an obligation to issue temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant because in case the defendants/respondents are allowed to change the use of the land in question, the plaintiff/appellant may suffer irreparable loss which may not be compensated in future. 7. To support the case of the plaintiff/appellant, the counsel has placed reliance upon following judgments:- A. Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in2005(1) WLC (SC) Civil 223; and B. bhagwati Singh v. Raja Laxman Singh, delivered by this High Court , reported in 2014(2) Civil Court Cases 398 (Rajasthan). 8. 7. To support the case of the plaintiff/appellant, the counsel has placed reliance upon following judgments:- A. Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in2005(1) WLC (SC) Civil 223; and B. bhagwati Singh v. Raja Laxman Singh, delivered by this High Court , reported in 2014(2) Civil Court Cases 398 (Rajasthan). 8. Counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents submitted that the gift deed was executed on 09.01.2020 and on the basis of the said gift-deed, the mutation was also opened on 28.01.2020 and after due process of law the land was converted vide order dated 01.06.2020 and later-on Patta was also issued on 22.03.2023. Counsel further submitted that the defendants/respondents have proceeded for establishing a petrol pump over the land in question for which the letter of intent (LoI) was issued by the Oil Company on 07.11.2019 which was later-on reconstituted vide letter dated 09.10.2020 in view of the application dated 15.07.2020. Counsel further submitted that the NOC was also issued for running the petrol pump on 06.02.2024 and presently the petrol pump is in operation. He also submits that it was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff/appellant that petrol pump is being installed at the land in question and he was also a consenting party as is evident from the pleadings in plaint itself. 9. Counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents further submitted that though the plaintiff/appellant may have raised certain triable issues to be decided by the court below on the basis of the evidence. However, while considering the application for temporary injunction, the Court is under an obligation to also keep in mind the issue as regards the balance of convenience and so also the comparative hardship or irreparable loss which could be caused to any of the party. Counsel in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon following judgments:- A. Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur, delivered by this High Court , reported in AIR 1977 Rajasthan 196; B. Parshuram & Ors. v. vishwanath & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2179/2016), decided by this Hon’ble Court on 27.05.2019; and C. Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. vs. Khushunma Ibrahim & Ors., delivered by Hon’ble the Apex Court, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1099 . 10. v. vishwanath & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2179/2016), decided by this Hon’ble Court on 27.05.2019; and C. Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. vs. Khushunma Ibrahim & Ors., delivered by Hon’ble the Apex Court, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1099 . 10. Considered the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the respective parties at Bar and also perused the record of the application for temporary injunction. 11. The court below while deciding the application for temporary injunction has observed that there is a good prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/appellant, which has not been challenged by the aggrieved party i.e the defendants/respondents. So this Court is not entering into the issue of prima facie case which has been held to be in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 12. Now the Court is to see remaining two issues for consideration of the relief of the temporary injunction, that are-balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 13. The plaintiff/appellant by filing the suit has challenged the gift deed dated 09.01.2020 executed by the plaintiff/appellant in favour of defendant/respondent No.1 saying that the said gift deed has been obtained by the defendant/respondent No.1 by playing fraud and misleading him. 14. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the civil suit in the year 2024 seeking declaration as regards the impugned gift deed dated 09.01.2020, meaning-thereby the suit has been filed after four years of the gift deed. During this intervening period the proceedings for conversion of the land were concluded and order for conversion was issued on 01.06.2020. It has also come on record that the Patta was also issued by the Jaipur Development Authority in the name of M/s. Advait Petro Chem LLP on 22.03.2023. The Oil Company i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a letter of intent (LoI) on 07.11.2019 and in view of the agreement between Shilpa Rawat and defendant/respondent No.1-Manoj Kumar Meena for limited liability partnership, the letter of intent (LoI) was amended vide letter dated 09.10.2020 in view of the application dated 15.07.2020. 15. In para No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant himself has admitted this fact that in the Month of February, 2024 the work of establishing the petrol pump was started and thereafter all the family members were happy. It was also stated that the family also gave the money to the defendant/respondent No.1 since 2020 whenever required and demanded. 15. In para No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant himself has admitted this fact that in the Month of February, 2024 the work of establishing the petrol pump was started and thereafter all the family members were happy. It was also stated that the family also gave the money to the defendant/respondent No.1 since 2020 whenever required and demanded. In the prayer clause of the application for temporary injunction also the plaintiff/appellant has made a prayer that the defendants/respondents may be restrained from starting the operation of the petrol pump. 16. Counsel for the defendants/respondents has stated that the petrol pump has already come into operation. The averments made in the plaint, in the application for temporary injunction and the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents clearly speak that the petrol pump has already come into operation over the land in question. 17. Now the issue remains that who would be having the comparative more hardship or which party would suffer the irreparable loss. 18. As has been observed above, the petrol pump has already been established and has also come into operation over the land in question on the basis of letter of intent (LoI) issued by the Oil Company in favour of the defendant/respondent No.1 and the plaintiff/appellant has prayed to maintain the status quo over the land in question or to restrain the defendants/respondents from operating the petrol pump. The plaintiff/appellant in case succeeds in the suit, he can be compensated by handing over the land in question but if the operation of the petrol pump is stayed at this stage and after substantial time, the plaintiff/appellant fails in the suit filed by him, it would not be possible to compensate the defendants/respondents for the earnings from the petrol pump which they are going to earn till the disposal of the litigation. 19. On perusal of the facts available on the record and the pleadings, the Court finds that the plaintiff/appellant was having the knowledge since 2020 that the defendants/respondents are going to establish a petrol pump over the plot in question and in para No.5 of the plaint this fact has been specifically stated, meaning-thereby, that if at all they were aggrieved or having some grievance, they could have preferred the suit long back. It seems that the plaintiff was having no grievance as regards installation of petrol pump but the plaintiff/appellant on having some dispute at later stage with defendant, he has filed this suit alongwith temporary injunction application. 20. Having gone through the judgments cited by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties and the facts and the pleadings available on the Court, the Court finds that the balance of convenience lies in favour of defendant/respondent and it would be the defendant/respondent who would be facing comparative more hardship and irreparable loss, if temporary injunction is granted. There is no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the court below. 21. Accordingly, the misc. appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant is dismissed having no merit. 22. It is made clear that creation of any third party rights in the land in question would remain subject to final outcome of the suit proceedings. 23. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, the stay application and the pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. 24. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case in regard to temporary injunction to the concerned Court forthwith.