Dismissed

M/S. Bharat Tractors Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Ridhi Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2018CW/15504/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an appellate order rejecting temporary injunction applications. The High Court held that since the construction was complete and only cosmetic work remained, it was not appropriate to grant additional injunctions. The Court dismissed the petition, ordered the defendant to file an undertaking, and directed the trial court to decide the suit within a year.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The defendant was directed to file an undertaking and the trial court was directed to decide the suit within a year.

M/S. Bharat Tractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Ridhi Auto… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15504/2018

¶3

M/s. Bharat Tractors Pvt. Ltd., Address- In Front Of Rail Dada Badi, Gangashahar Road, Bikaner Through Its Authorized Director Mahesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Ji Gupta Aged About 57 Years, R/o B-33, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Ridhi Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd., Bikaner Through Its Director Rajendra Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta R/o B-28, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri , Bikaner.

¶7

Nagar Nigam, Bikaner.

¶8

Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Through Its Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner.

¶9

Rafiq Aalam S/o Mohd. Hussain, Ridmalsar, Bikaner.

¶10

The Learned Senior Civil Judge No. 4, Bikaner.

¶11

The Learned Addl. District Judge No. 3, Bikaner.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. SD Vyas

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

04/12/2018

¶17

The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred laying challenge to order dated 24.08.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellate court) in an appeal filed against the order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No.4, Bikaner, in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶18

(2 of 3) [CW-15504/2018]

¶19

Succinctly, stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner – plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant (respondent No.1 herein), seeking an order that the construction being raised by the defendant be injuncted. The suit was filed on various grounds including impending threat to the property in which the plaintiff was carrying on his business as a tenant. The plaintiff had also questioned the legality of the construction, which was alleged to be raised without due permission of the competent authorities.

¶20

Needless to state that, the petitioner also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking stay of the offending construction, till disposal of the suit in question.

¶21

Learned Trial Court after going through the contentions and material available on record found no prima facie case in petitioner’s favour and thus rejected the same vide its order dated 11.07.2018.

¶22

Feeling aggrieved with the said order passed by the trial court, petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been rejected by the appellate court vide its order dated 24.08.2018. The appellate court upheld the findings and conclusions of the trial court vide its detailed and reasoned order.

¶23

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that as on the day, the construction work of building in question is complete and the finishing work alone is to be carried out.

¶24

In view of the pleadings of the plaintiff and the facts obtaining in the present case, particularly because the contentious construction is complete, this Court does not find it appropriate to

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-15504/2018]

¶27

grant injunction qua the remaining work, which is essentially cosmetic in nature.

¶28

Keeping in account the peculiar facts obtaining in the present case narrated above, decision of the present writ petition on its merit may entail any observation which may be prejudicial to the rights of the rival parties, hence, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction in the present case.

¶29

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.

¶30

However, the completion of the impugned construction shall not create any right in favour of the defendants and the same shall be subject to ultimate decision of the suit. The defendant No.1 shall file an undertaking in the trial court to the effect that if ultimately the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed, it would not claim any equity or right in relation to the construction raised during the intervening period of pendency of the suit.

¶31

Looking to the facts and the dispute involved in the present case, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from today.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

3-himanshu/-

M/S. Bharat Tractors Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Ridhi Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Bharat Tractors Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Ridhi Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd.

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

Sudarshan Shandiya Vs Sudarshan Sethiy and Ors.

Shanker Lal Harijan and Ors. Vs Manjit Singh and Anr.

Jaiveer Singh Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

M/S. Prem Giri Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mukhtyar Ahmed Vs Rk Verma

Ramswaroop Vs Kastoormal