The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders refusing a temporary injunction in a suit for partition. The Court held that since the suit was still at the stage of defendants' evidence, facts did not warrant interference.
The writ petition was dismissed, and the stay application No.7542/2019 was 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7689/2019
(2 of 4)
[CW-7689/2019]
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Dave.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
02/07/2019
By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 24.09.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge, Deedwana, District Nagour (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Deedwana, District Nagour (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’) afferming the same.
Facts in nutshell are that the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction in the year 2015. An application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed alongwith the suit. In the suit so filed, the petitioners claimed that a residential property situated in Naya Nagar Town, Deedwana title whereof records the name of defendant-respondent No.1-
(3 of 4)
[CW-7689/2019]
Damodar Gattani, was actually an ancestral property, as the amount of consideration was paid by the petitioners’ propositusLate Shri Ram Ji Gattani.
The trial Court rejected the application seeking Temporary Injunction, vide its order dated 24.09.2015, interalia observing that the title of the disputed property being sale deed dated 01.12.1997 is in the name of defendant No.1-Damodar Gattani and hence, until and unless the suit is finally decided, it cannot be said that the property in question was an HUF property, purchased by Shri Ram Ji Gattani, the defendants’ father.
The Appellate Court affirmed the view of the trial Court, however, with certain additional observations.
Impugning the orders aforesaid, Mr. Rajat Dave vehemently argued that the Courts below have erred in turning down the petitioners’ request for grant of injunction inasmuch as the sale deed in question was executed in the year 1977, when the defendant No.1 was hardly 17 years of age. Neither the petitioner could purchase the property nor could he be believed to have funds to procure the property.
During course of the arguments, upon query raised by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners informed that the suit is at the stage of defendants’ evidence.
This being the position, without going into the merit of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case does not warrant granting of injunction at this stage; particularly when the suit is at the stage of defendants’ evidence.
It is settled proposition of law that grant of injunction is a discretion. If the Courts below have refused to grant injunction in
(4 of 4)
[CW-7689/2019]
petitioners’ favour, no interference is warranted until and unless the petitioners can demonstrate shocking irregularity in the manner of adjudication or there is complete misreading of the documents/evidence
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any case worth interference. The writ petition is thus dismissed.
The stay application No.7542/2019 is also disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
37-A.Arora/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere under Article 227 with the trial and appellate courts' refusal to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for partition pending defendants' evidence.
Whether the lower courts' order rejecting the application for temporary injunction warrants High Court interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narayani Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Gattani
Ramawatar Gattani
Smt. Pushpa Devi Bhattad
Smt. Vina Devi Karwa
Smt. Santosh Kabra
Smt. Madhu Bala Bhattad
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
