[2025:RJ-JP:50881]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5243/2025 Shree Bhagchand Sharma S/o Shree Shyonarayan Sharma Alias Son Alias Sonya, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Keshyawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur(Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Shree Madanlal S/o Shyonarayan Alias Son Alias Sonya, R/o Village Keshyawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur(Raj.)

2. Premnagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur, Through President Rambabu Sankhla, R/o - Near Madhyam Marg Chauraha, Second Floor, Mansarovar, Jaipur(Raj.) And Another Residence - Sumer Nagar Q Block, Plot No. 53, 80 Ft. Main Road, Near Dev Drishti Hospital, Bhraman Thadi, Mansarovar, Jaipur(Raj.)

3. JVVNL, Through Assistant Engineer(P&S) Village Sanganer, R/o Near Sangasetu Police, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur(Raj.)

4. Govt. Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur(Raj.)

5. Shree Nathulaal S/o Shyonarayan Alias Son Alias Sonya, R/o Village Keshyawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur(Raj.)

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devashish Pancholi on behalf of Rajat Ranjan For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

17/12/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer), whereby ad-interim prayer in the temporary injunction application was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the present appeal raises substantial questions which require proper adjudication by this Hon’ble Court. The learned counsel contends that interim protection is imperative to ensure that the appeal is not rendered infructuous by irreversible acts such as construction, sale, or mutation of the suit property by the respondents. It is argued that the appellant seeks only protective reliefs for maintenance of status quo, whereas the respondents are attempting to radically and illegally alter the nature and character of the property. Additionally, the learned trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without proper appreciation of the pleadings and material on record. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated 29.09.2025, may be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

3. Heard.

4. It is brought to the notice of the Court that temporary injunction application is still pending and the parties have been duly served.

5. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that, instead of interfering in the order dated 29.09.2025, it is appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to decide the temporary injunction application, provided that service on respondents is complete, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6. It is made clear that the learned Trial Court shall decide the temporary injunction application independently and without being influenced by the order dated 29.09.2025.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Misc.

appeal stands disposed of.

8. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/16