The High Court affirmed that temporary injunctions can grant relief akin to final orders in urgent scenarios, upholding prior judgments and property ownership without jurisdictional errors.

ORDER :

MANEESH SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing: (i) the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur, in Case No. 58/2018, titled as ‘Mohan Lal vs. Tehsildar, Chomu & Ors.’, whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application; as well as (ii) order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur, in Case No. 7/2020 (CIS No. 6/2020), titled as ‘Rameshwar vs. Tehsildar, Chomu & Ors.’ whereby the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No. 4, (Rameshwar), was dismissed, affirming the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court, wherein the application for temporary injunction was allowed and defendant No. 4- Rameshwar was restrained from interfering with the use of the suit property, creating any obstruction/hinderance in the repair and construction of the suit property, and dispossessing the plaintiff/respondents.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff/respondents No. 1- Mohan Lal, filed a suit for permanent injunction on 26.09.2018, stating therein that with respect to the same subject land, an earlier suit bearing No.13/1984 had been filed by one, Usha Devi, against the petitioner's father, which was decreed vide decree dated 16.09.1999 in favor of Usha Devi, while restraining the petitioner/defendant No. 4 (Rameshwar Lal) from encroaching upon her property and from creating any hindrance to her peaceful occupation and possession. Further, the present plaintiff/respondents purchased the suit property from Usha Devi vide sale deed dated 03.10.1996 and, hence, stepped into her shoes as the rightful owner. Thereafter, the petitioner's father filed a Civil Suit and TI application bearing No. 34/2016, seeking a temporary injunction against the plaintiff/respondents. However, after considering the facts and the earlier decree dated 16.09.1999, the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner's father/applicant was rejected by the learned Trial Court. It was further pleaded that since the plaintiff/respondent's property is in a dilapidated condition and the Tehsildar, Chomu as well as Gram Panchayat, Kaushalpura served notices upon the plaintiff/respondents for demolishing the same. In furtherance thereof, plaintiff/respondents move an application for necessary repair and tried to start the repair work but the petitioner/defendant No.4 and his family members unnecessarily created obstruction and started quarreling, therefore, the suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff/respondents and prayed that the petitioner/defendant No.4 may kindly be restrained not to create any hindrance in the peaceful use and occupation of the suit property, further restrained not create any obstructions in carrying out necessary repairs, and the plaintiff/respondent may not be dispossessed from the suit property.

3. That the original defendant No. 4 (Rameshwar) filed a reply to the application for temporary injunction, refuting the averments made therein. It was contended that the plaintiff/respondents is not entitled to the injunction, and prayed for the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.

4. After hearing the arguments advanced by the respective parties, the learned Trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 17.01.2020, partial