IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Appellate Court's decision to grant a temporary injunction, emphasizing the need to maintain status quo to prevent irreparable loss and multiplicity of proceedings.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. Though the matter has been listed in the 'Fresh' category, upon the joint request of both the parties, the matter is heard finally, today itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.05.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore (‘Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal Order Case No. 03/2023 whereby the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff, while setting aside the order dated 03.06.2023, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Jalore (‘Trial Court’), and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

3. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners nay kindly be accepted and:-

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure-8), passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore, in Civil Appeal Order Case No.-03/2023 (Mangilal versus Lachharam & Ors.). may kindly be set aside and consequence thereof the appeal (Annexure-7) filed by the respondent-appellant-plaintiff-applicant may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.

(ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(iii) costs throughout may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent- plaintiff filed a suit (Annex.1) under Section 6 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for the restoration of possession and permanent & mandatory injunction against the petitioners- defendants of the plot marked as A, B, C, D in Map “A”, situated in the Aabadi land of Mauja Samatipura, Bodi Seri. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff also filed an application (Annex.2) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking temporary injunction in his favour, to which the petitioners-defendants filed their reply, subsequent thereto the learned Trial Court also appointed a Commissioner to prepare a report (Annex.5). Thereafter, the learned Trial Court,, vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6), rejected the application filed by the respondents-defendants.

5. Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6), the respondents-defendants preferred an appeal (Annex.7) before the Appellate Court, which was allowed vide order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8). Thus, aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8), passed by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the patta of the property in question has been issued in favour of the petitioners-defendants and admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff is not having any right in the property in question and there was was no occasion for the Appellate Court to allow the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff, and thus, the learned Appellate Court has erred in granting the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants also submits that the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6), has rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff, after considering the Commissioner Report (Annex.5), while observing that the respondent-plaintiff failed to establish prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour and therefore, the order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6) was just and proper, and warranted no interference by the Appellate Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants also submits that the learned Appellate Court has erred in giving a find