Dismissed

Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram v. Chhawar Singh

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2015CMA/286/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Both civil miscellaneous appeals challenging the rejection of temporary injunction applications are dismissed. The High Court held that the trial court could not extend an interim order regarding specific Khasra numbers to include lands affected by a prior 1963 partition. The interim order covering designated lands continues until the trial concludes in the primary suit.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were disposed of without granting any temporary injunction to the appellants.

Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram Vs Chhawar Singh — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1992/2012 Chhanwar Singh S/o Magala Ram @ Mangal Singh Vs. Gyan Singh & Ors. & S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.286/2013 Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram S/o Kripa Ram @ Kripu Vs. Chhanwar Singh

¶2

Order dated 18/02/2015

¶3

1/7

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

::: J U D G M E N T :::

¶6

(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1992/2012

¶7

Chhanwar Singh S/o Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh, by caste Mali Vs.

¶8

Gyan Singh S/o Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh Mali & Ors.

¶9

¶10

(2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.286/2013

¶11

Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram S/o Kripa Ram @ Kripu Vs. Chhawar Singh S/o Magala Ram @ Mangal Singh

¶12

Date of Judgment ::: 18/02/2015 .

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

Mr. Narendra Thanvi ] Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari ]- for the appellant-Chhanwar Singh.

¶17

Mr. S.M. Parihar, for the respondent No.1 Gyan Singh S/o Sh. Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh.

¶18

Mr. N.R. Choudhary, for the respondent No.2, Chhelji S/o Kriparam.

¶19

Dr.Sachin Acharya, for the appellant-Roop Singh (CMA No.286/13) (Applicant in Civil Misc. Case No.24/12)

¶20

¶21

BY THE COURT :

¶22

Both the these civil misc. appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

¶23

The appellant/plaintiff, Chhanwar Singh S/o Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh, has preferred the Civil Misc. Appeal

¶24

¶25

No.1992/2012, assailing the impugned order dated 13.09.2012 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No.36/2009- Chhanwar Singh S/o Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh Vs. Gyan Singh S/o Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh & Ors. , whereby the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, has been rejected.

¶26

A coordinate bench of this Court after hearing the counsel for both the parties on 26.09.2012 passed the following interim order in the said CMA No.1992/2012:

¶27

“Issue notice to the respondents No.1 and 2. Rule is made returnable within a period of four weeks.

¶28

Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to land situated in Village Pnjala, District: Jodhpur in Khasra No.299/1 ad measuring 3 bigha, 1 biswa , Khasra No.304 ad measuring 8 bigha, 9 biswa , Khasra No.299 ad measuring 3 bigha , and Khasra No.305/1 ad measuring 7 bigha, 10 biswa as of today i.e. 26.9.2012 for a period of six weeks.

¶29

List this cae after completion of 4^th week.”

¶30

The connected Civil Misc. Appeal No.2862/2013-Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram S/o Kripa Ram @ Kripu Vs. Chhawar Singh S/o Magala Ram @ Mangal Singh, has been filed by Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram, being aggrieved by the later order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the same learned trial court of A.D.J. No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Civil Misc. Case No.24/2012, by which application

¶31

¶32

filed by the applicant, Roopa Ram , under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also rejected. The said rejection of the temporary injunction application by the learned trial court was done mainly for the reason that in the aforesaid connected appeal ( CMA No.1992/12 ), the aforesaid interim order was passed by a coordinate bench of this Court on 26.09.2012 . The said reasons given by the learned trial court in the order dated 31.10.2012 are quoted herein below:

¶33

“हमन� उभय पक� द�र� इस व�च�रण�य ब�न�� क� तहत द�य� गए तक पर पसत�त नज�र� पर धय�नप%�&क, ससमम�नप%�&क व�च�र व��चन� कर(। स�&पथम त+ ��खन� म- आत� ह/ कक प�थ1 द�र� पसत�त नज�र� क� स�र यह ह/ कक अगर सबज�क5 म/5र आज� ��त� ह/ त+ ब�न� क�उन5र क7�म क� ककस� भ� �� क� पतत��( �त9र प�थ1 प�थ&न� पत असथ�ई तनष�ध�ज� प�श कर सकत� ह/। अगर हम म9ज%�� क� धय�नप%�&क तनश�षण करत� ह@ त+ स�यA प�थ1 न� �त9र पतत��( यह उजर उठ�य� ह/ कक अप�थ1 क+ �त9र ��( यह �� पसत�त करन� क�इस नय�य�7य म- क/त�धधक�र प�प नह(A ह/। यह क/त�धधक�र त+ र�जस� नय�य�7य क+ ह( प�प ह/। अ� �त9र प�थ1, पतत��( रपससAह जररय� यह प�थ&न� पत असथ�ई तनष�ध�ज� नह(A कर सकत� कक उस� इस नय�य�7य क� क/त�धधक�र प�प ह+। एक ह( पकक�र ज�� म- � अपन� ओर स� प�श प�थ&न� पत असथ�ई तनष�ध�ज� म- ह+ स5�णJ नह(A 7� सकत�, य�तन एक स�थ ब7+ हK5 � ब7+ क+लJ नह(A कर सकत�। �%सर( ओर ओर हम यह भ� प�त� ह/ कक प�थ1 न� अपन� ज�� म- सपष रप स� यह प7(डJAग नह(A 7( ह/ कक �ह अपन� ख�त � �र( कP भ%सम पर च�र�(��र( क� तनम�&ण कर�रह� ह+ य� करन� च�हत� ह+। एक पक�र स� यह एक नय� सबज�क5 म�5र ह/ और ब�न� प7(डJAगस क� ज+ प7(डJAगस म�खय �� म- ह+न� च�दहय�, अ� यह प�थ&न� पत

¶34

¶35

Order dated 18/02/2015

¶36

4/7

¶37

असथ�ई तनष�ध�ज� प�श नह(A ह+ सकत�। हम यह भ� प�त� ह/ कक म�नन�य र�ज . उचच नय�य�7य न� प�थ1 कP भ%सम क+ छ+डकर ज+ भ%सम प�थ1 अपन� �त�त� ह/ , अनय व��द�त भ%सम पर यथ�ससथतत क�यम रखन� क� आ��श द�य� ह/ अभ� म�नन�य र�ज. उचच नय�य�7य क+ प%ण&तय� �� त�म�7 न+द5स अनय पकक�र असथ�ई तनष�ध�ज� क� ब�न�� क+ तय करन� ह/। यह नय�य�7य अगर प�थ1 क� प�थ&न� पत स��क�र कर 7�त� ह/ त+ ससथतत म- परर�त&न आसकत� ह/, ज+ परर�त&न म�नन�य र�ज. उचच नय�य�7य क� आ��श क� व�पर(त ह+ सकत� ह/ also propriety demands that once Hon'ble Order is seized of the matter, subordinate court should not pass such order so as to alter the factual situation. इस ओर अप�थ1 द�र� पसत�त नज�र दवषग+चर भ� ह/। उपर+क �रण&त व��चन, व�श�षण स� सपष ह/ कक प�थ1 अपन� पथमदषय� क�स स�ब�त करन� म- व�फ7 रह� ह/। अत: यह ब��च�रण�य ब�न�� व�रद प�थ1 �हक अप�थ1 तनरण&त ककय� ज�त� ह/।

¶38

In Kashi Math Sansthan Vs. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swmay AIR 2010 SC 296 it has been held that question of considering balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party does not arise if party fails to prove prima case. हसतगत पकरण म- प�थ1 अपन� पथमदषय� क�स/म�म7� स�ब�त करन� म� व�फ7 रह� ह/। अगर प�थ1 क+ च�ह( गई इस��आ एकसप7(सस5 त9र पर प��न कर �( गई, त+ �� यर करन� कP ततधथ स� व��द�त भ%सम पर परर�त&न ह+ ज�य�ग� और ब�न� ��/ज�� म- सAश+धन क� उक परर�त&न कP आज� ��न� स� �म�क�ब�7 प�थ1 अप�थ1 क+ ह( अधधक अस�व�ध� � अप%रण�य कतत क�ररत ह+ग�, न� कक प�थ1 क+। इस पक�र स� यह �+न� ह( व�च�रण�य ब�न�� व�रद प�थ1, �हक अप�थ1 तनरण&त ककए ज�त� ह/।

¶39

उपर+क त�न� व�च�रण�य ब�न��ओA क� व��चन, व�श�षण � तनषकष& क� आध�र पर तनमन आ��श प�ररत ककय� ज�त� ह/: -

¶40

¶41

Order dated 18/02/2015

¶42

5/7

¶43

ब�न� म�खय �� क� ग�ण � अ�ग�ण पर ज�त� ह�ए प�थ1 (पतत��( सA.3) द�र� ��यर यह प�थ&न� पत असथ�ई तनष�ध�ज� व�रद अप�थ1 (��() अस��क�र कर ख�ररज ककय� ज�त� ह/। खच�& पकक�र�न अपन� अपन� �हन कर-ग�।

¶44

Mr. Narendra Thanvi and Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, both the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, Chhanwar Singh S/o Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh, submitted that the interim order dated 26.09.2012 was granted after hearing both the side counsels, and therefore, the status quo of the entire land should be maintained and inter alia for the specific Khasra numbers as given in the order dated 26.09.2012, quoted above.

¶45

This argument is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Dr. Sachin Acharya and Mr. N.R. Choudhary, for defendants, Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram and Chailji, both sons of Sh. Kripa Ram, and Mr. S.M. Parihar, for Gyan Singh S/o Sh. Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh (plaintiff). They submitted that the later order passed by the learned trial court on 31.10.2012 was unnecessarily influenced by the interim order dated 26.09.2012 passed a coordinate bench of this Court in connected CMA No.1992/2012 filed by appellant/plaintiff, Chhanwar Singh S/o Sh. Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh, in a suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of Will executed by plaintiff's father Sh. Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh in favour of Gyan Singh (respondent No.1 herein),

¶46

¶47

who is the real brother of plaintiff, Chhanwar Singh, but the plaintiff, Chhanwar Singh, cannot claim any right with respect to shares of brothers of Mangala Ram, i.e. Chhelji and Roop Singh, which partition took place way back in the year 1963 and, therefore, the interim order granted by a coordinate bench of this Court on 26.09.2012, though specifying the Khasra number(s) in the same which were in the share of Mangala Ram only but under the guise of that interim order only, the learned trial court refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of applicant, Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram by order dated 31.10.2012 when the plaintiff, Roop Singh was sought to be stopped by creating obstruction in the construction of boundary wall by the plaintiff on the basis of said interim order dated 26.09.2012.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that both the appeals can be disposed of at this stage by directing the learned trial court that the interim order granted by a coordinate bench of this Court dated 26.09.2012, which duly specified the Khasra number(s), cannot beyond the parameters of that order and no further injunction could have been granted or believed to have been granted by the learned trial court in respect of other lands for which a partition took place way back in the year 1963 and the defendant, Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram S/o Kripa Ram, and Chailji S/o Kripa Ram, took their portion of their respective land holdings. Since the interim order dated 26.09.2012 was granted after hearing both the counsels, therefore, that order can be allowed to continue till the trial is completed in the suit filed by the Chhanwar

¶49

¶50

Order dated 18/02/2015

¶51

7/7

¶52

Singh S/o Sh. Mangala Ram @ Mangal Singh, against his own brother, namely, Gyan Singh, but that order cannot adversely affect the land holdings of other defendants, namely, Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram and Chhelji, both sons of Sh. Kripa Ram @ Kripu.

¶53

Therefore, both the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of and it is further made clear that any construction raised on the land in question by any of the parties or any alienation of their land holdings, if any made by the any party, shall remain subject to the final decision of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

¶54

With these observations, both the misc. appeals are disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the court below forthwith.

¶55

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶56

DJ/28-29

Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram v. Chhawar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram v. Chhawar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sky Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs A.C.C.T. Jodhpur

Lrs.of Hastimal and Ors. Vs Bhura Ram

Lrs.of Hasti Mal and Ors. Vs Hans Raj and Ors.

Lrs.of Devi Lal Vs Kanta Devi

Chhawar Singh Vs Gyan Singh and Ors.

Patrick Simon and Ors. Vs Shri Saint Anthony'S School Edu. Ass.