2022 Supreme(Raj) 1837

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Tej Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 982 of 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2022

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition against the rejection of an injunction application is not maintainable when a hierarchy of appellate authorities is provided in the relevant law, and the petitioner is required to avail the remedy of appeal available to them.

Headnote:

Injunction Application - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - The court held that a writ petition against rejection of an injunction application by the trial Court is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as a hierarchy of appellate authorities have been provided in the Act of 1955. The petitioners are required to avail the remedy of appeal available to them in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the rejection of their injunction application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by the trial Court. Instead of availing remedies before the Appellate Authority, the petitioners directly approached the Court, alleging that the respondent was going to dispossess them.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that a writ petition against the rejection of the injunction application was not maintainable as per the hierarchy of appellate authorities provided in the Act of 1955. The petitioners were required to avail the remedy of appeal available to them in accordance with the law.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition against the rejection of the injunction application by the trial Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provision of a hierarchy of appellate authorities provided in the Act of 1955, which required the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal available to them in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The writ petition was deemed to be not maintainable, and the petitioners were directed to avail the remedy available under the Act of 1955.