Allowed

Mujkhtyar Ahmed and Anr. v. Mainuddin and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2013CMA/1356/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal was against an injunction order maintaining status quo over a land parcel. The Court held that prima facie findings in interim orders do not affect final suit outcomes. The status quo order was maintained, while the trial was directed to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Maintained the interim order of status quo; remitted the suit to be tried within one year.

Mujkhtyar Ahmed and Anr. Vs Mainuddin and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: J U D G M E N T :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1356/2010

¶5

(Mukhtyar Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Mainuddin & Ors.)

Date of Judgment

05^th February, 2013

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

Mr. M.R. Choudhary, for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Joshi } Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit } for the respondent No.1.

¶11

BY THE COURT:

¶12

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.11.2010, by which, the learned trial court has decided application filed by the respondent No.1 Mainuddin under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC and has ordered for maintenance of status quo qua half portion of land ad-measuring 7 bigha comprising in Khasra No.442/4 situated at village Makrana. The order was passed in the year 2010 and no interim order has been granted by this Court.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that though the appellants do not intend to further transfer the said property, still in view of the status quo order, they are not in a position to raise construction and, therefore, to this extent they are aggrieved by the order impugned. It is further submitted

¶14

¶15

that the findings recorded while examining the prima facie case may affect the final out come of the litigation and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of status quo is for the benefit of both the parties, as in absence thereof, the same would lead to further complications. It is further submitted that in a period of two and a half years, since the injunction was passed, no application and/or submission was made regarding the status quo order affecting the appellants adversely.

¶17

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate and, therefore, ordered that the suit which is said to be pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur be expedited and the trial court may conclude the said suit preferably within a period of one year.

¶18

It goes without saying that any observations made in the order dated 22.11.2010 for the purpose of arriving at a finding of prima facie case would not affect the final determination of the suit.

¶19

With these observations, while maintaining the order dated 22.11.2010 regarding maintenance of status quo, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶21

A.K.Chouhan/- 76

Mujkhtyar Ahmed and Anr. v. Mainuddin and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujkhtyar Ahmed and Anr. v. Mainuddin and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Ganvri Vs State and Ors.

Champa Lal Vs J.v.v.N.Ltd.and Ors.

Dara Singh Vs Sahab Ram and Ors.

Bishan Singh Vs Iqbal Singh

Virendra and Anr. Vs State through Collector Banswara and Ors.

Jeevan Singh Vs R F C