The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the trial court to consider the affidavits, relevant material, and the documents available on record while deciding an application for temporary injunction, emphasizing the importance of forming an opinion and satisfaction at the interim stage.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Gupta, J. - This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant no. 1 (for short, 'the defendant') against the order dated 10.2.2022 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2019 (80/2018), whereby the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent no. 1-plaintiff-applicant (for short, 'the plaintiff) has been allowed.

2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of the decree and permanent injunction against the defendants. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed, which has been allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 10.2.2022. Hence, the present Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the plaintiff Girdhari Lal is the grandson of Shyola @ Shyonarayan. He further submits that Ladu (great-grand father of plaintiff) had three sons Nathu, Om Prakash and Shyola @ Shyonarayan. Ladu was the khatedar of 1/2 part of the suit land and 1/2 part of the suit land was purchased by Nathu, Om Prakash and Shyola @ Shyonarayan jointly from Gopal and Govind S/o. Ram Kishan. In the year 1994, a revenue suit for division of 1/2 share in joint agricultural holdings of 37 bigha 12 biswa was filed by Nathu and Om Prakash against Shyola @ Shyonarayan, which was decreed by Assistant Collector (First), Jaipur vide judgment dated 3.6.1995. An appeal was filed against the said judgment before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the same was allowed and accordingly matter was remanded to the court below. Thereafter the Asstt. Collector (First), Jaipur vide its judgment dated 22.2.2001 again decreed the suit. The said judgment dated 22.2.2001 was challenged in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.8.2005. Against the said judgment dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue and during the pendency of that appeal, plaintiff filed the present civil suit for declaration, cancellation of the decree, which was passed in the revenue suit, and permanent injunction. Subsequently, the appeal filed before the Board of Revenue was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.3.2020. He further submits that as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff being the grandson of Shyola @ Shyonarayan had no right to file the present suit claiming partition of the suit land during the life time of his father. The plaintiff alleged that the decree dated 22.2.2021 passed by the Asstt. Collector (First), Jaipur was obtained by fraud and collusion, but none of the party of the said revenue suit has challenged the said decree alleging the same to have been obtained by fraud and collusion. Rather the decree dated 22.2.2021 was passed on merits after recording evidence of both parties and after considering material on record. He further submits that even if the decree dated 22.2.2021 passed by Asstt. Collector (First), Jaipur is set-aside, relief of partition of agricultural land cannot be granted by the Civil Court in view of Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, but the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff has been allowed by the trial court without considering the aforesaid facts.

4. He further submits that even the trial court has not considered the important fact that the family settlement took place in the year 1980 between Shyola, Nathu and Om Prakash, whereas the suit was filed by the plaintiff Girdhari Lal Sharma in the year 2018 i.e. after 38 years, despite the fact that the other family members including Shyola @ Shyonarayan and Kanhaiya Lal Sharma (father of the plaintiff) are not disputing the same. Lastly, it has been submitted that the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2021 passed by Asstt. Collector (First), Jaipur was merged with the subsequent judgments passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Boa