HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3099/2010

1. Smt Lavina Sharma, Wife of Late Shri Pankaj Sharma, Aged about 34 years.

2. Manan Sharma, S/o Late Shri Pankaj Sharma (minor), aged about 6 years, through natural guardian mother Smt. Lavina Sharma.

Both the residents of SB-116, Mangal Marg, Opposite Apex Mall, Tonk Road, jaipur presently residing at III/191, Telecom Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Appellants-Plaintiffs Versus

1. Smt. Sushila Sharma Wife of Late Shri Madan Gopal Sharma, R/o SB-116, Mangal Marg, Opposite Apex Mall, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

Contesting Respondent/Defendant No.1

2. Jatan Sharma S/o Late Shri Madan Gopal Sharma, R/o SB- 116, Mangal Marg, Opposite Apex Mall, Tonk Road, Jaipur at present C/o Shri D. K. Jain, E-110, near Padmani Studio, Katariya Colony, Ramnagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur.

3. Smt. Anita Sharma, W/o Shri Mahendra Sharma, Daughter of Late Shri Madan Gopal Sharma, R/o F-8, Ramnagar Extension, Swaj Farm, Opposite Jayotirao Phoole College, Jaipur.

4. Smt. Poonam Sharma, W/o Shri Vikas Mathur, Daughter of Late Shri Madan Gopal Sharma, R/o 3303, Bhindo Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

---Performa-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohd. Adil, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

Date Of Judgment 01/11/2023 The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-

applicants(for short ‘the applicants’) under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the order dated 02.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’), whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial court has wrongly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that the trial court has virtually decided the suit while deciding the temporary injunction application. The applicants had challenged the so-called Will dated 12.12.2008 and Release Deed dated 05.02.2009. The applicants had filed a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction. So, the trial court should have ordered both the parties to maintain status-quo over the disputed property. So, the order of the trial court be set-aside and the parties be directed to maintain status quo over the disputed property, till disposal of the suit.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order dated

02.11.2010.

The trial court while dismissing the temporary injunction application observed that the deceased-Pankaj Sharma had executed a Will in favour of non-applicant No.1-Smt. Sushila Sharma on 12.12.2008 and after that, he executed a Release Deed in her favour on 05.02.2009. The trial court has rightly observed that the property equivalent to the share of Late Pankaj Sharma in the disputed property shall be subject to the outcome of the original suit and if the non-applicant No.1-Smt. Sushila Sharma alienates/transfers the said property during the pendency of the suit, she would mention in the transfer deed about pendency of the present suit. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants. So, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/26 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)