Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J
MUNICIPAL BOARD – Appellant
Versus
UPENDRA KUMAR ARYA AND ORS – Respondent
Judgment :
1. Instant civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (for short ‘the appellate Court’) in civil appeal No. 19/2002, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 09.04.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil case No. 25/1997, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for breach of the court’s order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents had filed a civil suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction in which temporary injunction application was also filed before the trial Court. The trial Court vide order dated 25.01.1997 directed that both the parties shall maintain status quo till the reply is submitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after passing the said order, respondents raised construction over the disputed land. After that, petitioner filed an application for breach of the court’s order, but the trial Court vide order dated 09.04.2002 dismissed the applicat
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate willful violation of an interim order, which was not established in this case.
An aggrieved party has the right to appeal against an ad-interim injunction under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, ensuring judicial compliance with procedural mandates.
The dismissal of the original suit nullifies any interim orders, and the appellate court's decision to set aside the trial court's civil imprisonment directive was correct.
Subsequent developments can render an initial application for temporary injunction infructuous.
To obtain interim injunction, a petitioner must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm; failure to satisfy these elements results in dismissal of t....
The need for further evidence to determine the genuineness of conflicting documents justified maintaining status quo on the disputed land until the suit's resolution.
Partition proceedings cannot be halted when the suit land is shown to be joint between the parties according to the revenue record.
The need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
