Dismissed

Mukesh and Ors. v. Nayab Tehsildar and Anr.

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2017CW/9353/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a special civil writ petition, dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The court found no perversity in the lower courts' observations regarding land ownership and declined interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the trial court is directed to expedite the permanent injunction suit.

Mukesh and Ors. Vs Nayab Tehsildar and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9353 / 2017

¶3

Mukesh Son of Late Puran Singh

¶4

Surendra Son of Late Puran Singh

¶5

Rajveer Singh Son of Late Puran Singh

¶6

Nawab Son of Late Puran Singh

¶7

Dinesh Son of Late Puran Singh,

¶8

All Are by Caste Tyagi, Resident of Basae Nawab, Tehsil Sapau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

¶9

Meena Daughter of Late Puran Singh, Wife of Hari Singh, by Caste Tyagi, Resident of of Rahsena, Tehsil Rajakheda, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Nayab Tehsildar, Basae Nawab, Tehsil Sapau, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

¶13

District Collector, Dholpur (Rajasthan)

¶14

----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶16

Judgment

¶17

07/11/2017

¶18

Heard counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners (hereafter ‘the plaintiffs’) and perused the impugned judgment dated 10.2.2017 passed by appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 9/2015 affirming the order dated 13.5.2015 passed by the trial court dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs.

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CW-9353/2017]

¶21

Both the courts below vide their impugned

¶22

judgment/order have held that in the revenue records, the suit land was standing in the name of the State Government and had been allotted to Tehsildar, Sapau on 5.7.2014 for the purpose of Sub Tehsil Basai Nawab, over which Tehsildar, Sapau was having the ownership and possession. They further found that the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to ownership of the suit land could not be considered as no suit for declaration and change of revenue entries in regard thereto had been filed. The courts further found that there was no definitive evidence of any settled possession of the plaintiffs. In this view of the matter, interim relief, as prayed for, had been dismissed by the two courts below, as adverted to here-in-above.

¶23

Counsel for the plaintiffs has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment/order passed by the courts below. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere therewith. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

The trial court is however, directed to expedite the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs and dispose it of expeditiously.

¶25

(ALOK SHARMA) J.

¶26

Mukesh and Ors. v. Nayab Tehsildar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh and Ors. v. Nayab Tehsildar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Wahid Vs Abdul Gaffar

Prem Prakash Vs Jitendra and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Sharma and Ors. Vs Smt Madhvi Ahluwalia and Ors.

Bhagwati Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Rekha Devi Vs Sharwan Lal Saini andANR

Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs Ram Phool Nagar and Ors.