[2026:RJ-JD:6386]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1510/2023 Narendra Singh S/o Shri Narpat Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Palasana, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Jagmal Singh Rathore And Company Pvt. Ltd., Bhatiyon Ka Vas, Ward No. 8, Bikaner, Through Director Madho Singh Rathore.

2. Poonam Singh S/o Baksa Singh, By Caste Rajput, Behind Mataji Mandir, Behind Deora Builders, Ambedkar Colony, Bikaner.

3. Basanti W/o Poonam Singh, By Caste Rajput, Behind Mataji Mandir, Behind Deora Builders, Ambedkar Colony, Bikaner.

4. Mamta D/o Poonam Singh, By Caste Rajput, Behind Mataji Mandir, Behind Deora Builders, Ambedkar Colony, Bikaner.

5. S.h.o. Police Station, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

(Raj.)

6. Deputy Registrar (First), Bikaner.

7. Deputy Registrar (Second), Bikaner.

8. Deputy Registrar, (Third), Bikaner.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Madhav Vyas.

Mr. Devi Singh Rathore.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.

Mr. Kuldeep Prajapati for Mr. Rajesh Parihar.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

(i) Arguments concluded on: 09/01/2026 (ii) Judgment reserved on: 09 / 01 /202 6 (iii) Full judgment/Operative part: Full judgment (iv) Judgment pronounced on : 25 / 02 /202 6

1. The present miscellaneous appeal on behalf of the appellant- defendant No. 4 has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’ hereinafter) against the Order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No. 40/2023 (C.I.S. No.125/2023) titled as ‘Jagmal Singh Rathore & Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Poonam Singh & Ors.’, whereby application filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was allowed and the appellant-defendant No. 4 was restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondent No. 1-plaintiff over land of Khasra No. 49, claimed to form part of Patta No.76, situated at Madan Vihar Colony, Vallabh Garden, Bikaner.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that appellant-defendant No. 4 purchased land measuring 3,69,600 sq. ft. and 6,45,930.50 sq. ft., comprised in Patta No. 76, under two different registered agreements to sell dated 12.10.2022 from Shri Yatindra Singh Rathore, the power-of-attorney holder of Shri Chandra Shekhar Rathore, for a consideration of Rs. 55 lakhs and Rs. 95 lakhs. When the appellant attempted to enter upon the disputed land and erect fencing, he was allegedly obstructed by Bhawani Singh and Basanti Kanwar, who were having possession over some part of the land purchased by the appellant as a licensee for taking care of the said land. Consequently, the appellant instituted a suit for injunction, wherein an interim injunction was granted vide order dated 15.11.2022. Subsequently, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) and simultaneously filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, which came to be allowed by the trial court vide order dated 22.08.2023; the said order is impugned herein.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the suit property was validly purchased through registered agreements to sell and that Shri Yatindra Singh Rathore was duly authorised by a valid power of attorney executed by Shri Chandra Shekhar Rathore, empowering him to alienate the property in question. It has been contended that the trial court erred in granting injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1 while ignoring the material facts. It has been further submitted that the trial court, while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, recorded findings on possession in favour of the respondent No. 1, which was wholly unwarranted at the interlocutory stage.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the dispute relates to agri