The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of an interim injunction application. The Court directed the trial court to decide the interim application within two months.
Directed trial court to decide interim injunction application within two months; Writ petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.480/2015 With Stay Application No.420/2015
Kedar Sharma and Others Vs. Bus Union, Bus Operators Association through Haricharan Lal Sharma and Others
Date of Order ::: 03.03.2015
Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Shri Madhav Mitra, counsel for petitioners ####
By the Court :-
Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 24.12.2014 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, by which the application of the plaintiff-petitioners under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing appropriate interim injunction order pending final disposal of the temporary injunction application in the suit has been rejected.
Learned counsel for petitioners has criticized the order contending that learned trial court has failed to appreciate that once the entire construction of the school takes place, the defendant shall claim equity and that the main suit of the petitioners would become infructuous. It is contended that learned trial court has not justified in not relying on the report of the court commissioner to hold that there are no signs of existence of the garden on the disputed plot and it is contended that when the construction is being raised, the existence of the garden now would not be
// 2 //
possible.
From the above, it is transpired that the main applicatin for temporary injunction of the petitioner is still pending and the suit itself is to be decided on merits therefore there is no question of any equity being claimed by the defendants. Therefore, without interfering with the impugned order, the trial court is directed to decide the interim injunction application within two months from the date next fixed before it or on any earlier date than that, after hearing both the parties.
Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. This also disposes of stay application.
It goes without saying that if the temporary injunction is granted or the suit is decreed, obviously the defendants would not be in a position to claim any equity merely because constructions have been raised.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//71
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court could claim equity due to raised constructions in rejecting an interim injunction application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kedar Sharma and Others
Bus Union, Bus Operators Association through Haricharan Lal Lal Sharma and Others
Mohammad Rafiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court