Disposed

Jetha Ram v. Madan Singh

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2022CMA/1269/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of High Court of Rajasthan disposed of the civil misc. appeal challenging the rejection of an ad-interim temporary injunction. The court directed the trial court to decide the pending prayer within six months and maintained status quo.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed CMA with direction to Trial Court to decide pending injunction application within six months; status quo maintained.

Jetha Ram Vs Madan Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1269/2022

¶3

Jetha Ram S/o Shri Govind Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, Distt. Barmer.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Madan Singh S/o Shri Sumer Singh, R/o Jethanthri, Tehsil Samdadi, Distt. Barmer.

¶7

Hukum Singh S/o Shri Abhay Singh, R/o Kuship, Tehsil Sivana, Distt. Barmer.

¶8

Shaitan Singh S/o Shri Vishan Singh, R/o Jethanthri, Tehsil Samdadi, Distt. Barmer.

¶9

Gajey Singh S/o Shri Vishan Singh, R/o Jethanthri, Tehsil Samdadi, Distt. Barmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Anirudh Purohit
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶13

Order

¶14

03/08/2022

¶15

The instant Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been preferred by the plaintiffappellant against the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court) in Civil Misc. Case No.22/2022, whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for grant of ad-interim temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff-appellant.

¶16

The plaintiff-appellant preferred a suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a decree for recovery of possession and also for permanent & prohibitory injunction against the respondents for

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CMA-1269/2022]

¶19

not interfering with the peaceful use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property.

¶20

Alongwith the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was also preferred. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 07.07.2022 declined to grant ad-interim order in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, hence, this Civil Misc. Appeal.

¶21

A perusal of the record shows that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC is pending consideration before the learned Trial Court.

¶22

In view of the above, the present Civil Misc. Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt the copy of this order.

¶23

Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today with respect to the property in dispute and the suit property shall not be alienated.

¶24

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶25

10-neha/-

Jetha Ram v. Madan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jetha Ram v. Madan Singh

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

Smt. Durga Bai and Ors. Vs Mohanlal Dhoot and Anr.

Daleep Vs Subhash Chand

Sukh Lal Vs Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr.

Priyag Chand Vs Gajanand and Ors.

Jagdev Singh Vs Manisha Devi

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harji and Ors.