ORDER : MANEESH SHARMA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing: (i) the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur, in Case No. 58/2018, titled as ‘Mohan Lal vs. Tehsildar, Chomu & Ors.’, whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application; as well as (ii) order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur, in Case No. 7/2020 (CIS No. 6/2020), titled as ‘Rameshwar vs. Tehsildar, Chomu & Ors.’ whereby the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No. 4, (Rameshwar), was dismissed, affirming the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court, wherein the application for temporary injunction was allowed and defendant No. 4- Rameshwar was restrained from interfering with the use of the suit property, creating any obstruction/hinderance in the repair and construction of the suit property, and dispossessing the plaintiff/respondents. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff/respondents No. 1- Mohan Lal, filed a suit for permanent injunction on 26.09.2018, stating therein that with respect to the same subject land, an earlier suit bearing No.13/1984 had been filed by one, Usha Devi, against the petitioner's father, which was decreed vide decree dated 16.09.1999 in favor of Usha Devi, while restraining the petitioner/defendant No. 4 (Rameshwar Lal) from encroaching upon her property and from creating any hindrance to her peaceful occupation and possession. Further, the present plaintiff/respondents purchased the suit property from Usha Devi vide sale deed dated 03.10.1996 and, hence, stepped into her shoes as the rightful owner. Thereafter, the petitioner's father filed a Civil Suit and TI application bearing No. 34/2016, seeking a temporary injunction against the plaintiff/respondents. However, after considering the facts and the earlier decree dated 16.09.1999, the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner's father/applicant was rejected by the learned Trial Court. It was further pleaded that since the plaintiff/respondent's property is in a dilapidated condition and the Tehsildar, Chomu as well as Gram Panchayat, Kaushalpura served notices upon the plaintiff/respondents for demolishing the same. However, after considering the facts and the earlier decree dated 16.09.1999, the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner's father/applicant was rejected by the learned Trial Court. It was further pleaded that since the plaintiff/respondent's property is in a dilapidated condition and the Tehsildar, Chomu as well as Gram Panchayat, Kaushalpura served notices upon the plaintiff/respondents for demolishing the same. In furtherance thereof, plaintiff/respondents move an application for necessary repair and tried to start the repair work but the petitioner/defendant No.4 and his family members unnecessarily created obstruction and started quarreling, therefore, the suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff/respondents and prayed that the petitioner/defendant No.4 may kindly be restrained not to create any hindrance in the peaceful use and occupation of the suit property, further restrained not create any obstructions in carrying out necessary repairs, and the plaintiff/respondent may not be dispossessed from the suit property. 3. That the original defendant No. 4 (Rameshwar) filed a reply to the application for temporary injunction, refuting the averments made therein. It was contended that the plaintiff/respondents is not entitled to the injunction, and prayed for the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. 4. After hearing the arguments advanced by the respective parties, the learned Trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 17.01.2020, partially allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the present petitioner's father/defendant No. 4 with the following injunction: 5. Being aggrieved by the injunction order dated 17.01.2020, the father of the present petitioner (Rameshwar) preferred a miscellaneous appeal. 6. That the learned Appellate Court, after hearing arguments of the respective parties and due appreciation of facts and law, dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 23.04.2024 and confirmed the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the aforesaid findings, submits that both the learned Courts below have seriously erred in passing the impugned orders restraining the petitioner's father (Rameshwar). He further submits that the learned Courts below failed to consider the cause of action pleaded in the suit and the nature of the injunction granted. He further submits that, in view of the relief claimed in the main suit, it appears that the final relief has been granted to the plaintiff/respondents at the stage of the temporary injunction application itself. He further submits that, in view of the relief claimed in the main suit, it appears that the final relief has been granted to the plaintiff/respondents at the stage of the temporary injunction application itself. Therefore, he prays that the impugned orders dated 17.01.2020 and 23.04.2024 may kindly be set aside and the TI application may kindly be dismissed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the plaintiff/respondents is the owner of the suit property. He further submits that the dispute between the petitioner's father and the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff/respondents has already been decided against the petitioner's father vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.1999, wherein the petitioner's father was restrained from creating any obstruction in the peaceful use and occupation of the suit property and the petitioner's father was also restrained not to encroach upon the property of the plaintiff/respondents. He also submits that in the subsequent suit, the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner's father was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, after considering the earlier judgment and decree dated 16.09.1999. He further submits that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition, and revenue authorities have already issued notices regarding the same. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondents is carrying out the necessary repairs to avoid penal consequences, which have been unnecessarily objected to by the petitioner's father and submits that both the learned Courts below have considered the facts of the case at length and passed a well reasoned order, which does not called for any interference under present jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar, and also perused the material available on record. 10. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the plaintiff/respondents is the owner of the suit property, which is in a dilapidated condition. Consequently, Gram Panchayat Kushalpura as well as Tehsildar, Chomu issued notices to take appropriate remedial action regarding the demolition of the said property. In light of those notices, the plaintiff/respondents has filed the present suit against the petitioner/defendant No. 4, seeking a decree of permanent injunction. Consequently, Gram Panchayat Kushalpura as well as Tehsildar, Chomu issued notices to take appropriate remedial action regarding the demolition of the said property. In light of those notices, the plaintiff/respondents has filed the present suit against the petitioner/defendant No. 4, seeking a decree of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff/respondents also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the following reliefs: 11. Further, from a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff/respondents had filed an identical suit against the father of the present petitioner i.e. Rameshwar. In that suit, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff/respondents, Usha Devi, was acknowledged as the rightful owner, and the petitioner’s father was restrained from encroaching upon the suit property. He was also restrained from creating any hindrance in the peaceful occupation and use of the said property by the plaintiff/respondents vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father filed a separate suit and an application for temporary injunction against the present plaintiff/respondent but the learned Trial Court, after referring to the earlier judgment and decree dated 16.09.1999, dismissed the temporary injunction application. 12. From a bare perusal of the record, it is also evident that the plaintiff/respondents is the owner of the property, and that since the property is in a dilapidated condition, Tehsil Chomu as well as Gram Panchayat Kushalpura have already served notices upon the plaintiff/respondents, stating that the property is in a deteriorated state and sternly warned that any untoward incident occurring due to such condition would be the responsibility of the plaintiff/respondents. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff/respondents has filed the present suit seeking the relief of an injunction. 13. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is further evident that the learned Court below has duly considered the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, and found all three in favour of the plaintiff/respondents and against the father of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the Court was justified in restraining the father of the petitioner by passing the following injunction order. 14. Further, the learned Appellate Court, upon due consideration of fact and documents of the parties, confirmed the said injunction order and dismissed the appeal. 15. Accordingly, the Court was justified in restraining the father of the petitioner by passing the following injunction order. 14. Further, the learned Appellate Court, upon due consideration of fact and documents of the parties, confirmed the said injunction order and dismissed the appeal. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant No. 4 (Rameshwar) that the learned Court below has awarded final relief at the stage of the application for temporary injunction cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the present case concerns an injunction sought on account of the property being in a dilapidated condition, and because respondents/defendant No.1 to 3 have issued notices to the plaintiff/respondents to take remedial measures, the plaintiff/respondents has initiated such measures to avoid any untoward incident. However, the petitioner's father/defendant No.4 (Rameshwar) obstructed these remedial actions. Therefore, both the learned Courts below have rightly restrained the petitioner's father/defendant No.4 (Rameshwar). 16. Even otherwise, given the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is incumbent upon the Court to acknowledge the urgency of the situation and grant interim relief as prayed for. It cannot be held that the Court is precluded from granting such relief merely because it may resemble the final relief sought in the suit. 17. That at the stage of considering an application for temporary injunction, courts are required to examine the pleadings only on a prima facie basis. In the present case, both the learned Courts below, after due consideration of the: facts and circumstances; the previous judgment and decree dated 16.09.1999; as well as dismissal of the TI application filed by he petitioner's father (Rameshwar), have rightly restrained the petitioner's father/defendant No. 4 by issuing the required injunction order. 18. In view of the facts of the case, it is reflected that both the learned Courts below have rightly granted an injunction restraining the petitioner's father/defendant No. 4 (Rameshwar) from encroaching upon the property of the plaintiff/respondents as well as not to create any hindrance in use, occupation and repair work of the plaintiff/respondent, have exercised their judicial discretion properly in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Courts below have committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 19. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Courts below have committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 19. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 and 23.04.2024 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. It is also pertinent to note here that the present writ petition was filed on 29.10.2025 against the dismissal of the appeal dated 23.04.2024 and no explanation whatsoever has been provided by the petitioner or his predecessor for filing this writ petition after a delay of more than one year and six months from the date of the impugned order. 21. Since from the record of the case it is evident that despite earlier decree dated 16.09.1999 as well as rejection of the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner's father, the petitioners are unnecessarily creating obstruction in the repair work of the plaintiff/respondents, on false and frivolous grounds. Therefore, the present Civil Writ Petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. 22. The petitioners are directed to deposit costs of Rs.10,000/- with the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today for filing such a frivolous writ petition. 23. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.