##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14483]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 679/2026

Sourabh S/o Suraj Prakash, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Lohawat Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi, Proprietor Of

Balajai Hp Gas, Rural Distributor, Lohawat Bisnawas.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Satya Narayan S/o Jagmal Ram, Resident Of Village Lohawat Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi.

2. Lakshman Ram S/o Satya Narayan, Resident Of Village Lohawat Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi.

3. Ramesh S/o Ashok Kumar, Resident Of Village Lohawat Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi.

4. Birbal Ram S/o Ramu Ram, Resident Of Village Lohawat Bisnawas, Tehsil Lohawat, District Phalodi.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

23/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff assailing the order dated 07.01.2026 (Annx.8) passed by the Additional District Judge, Phalodi in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 04/2025 (Sourabh vs. Satya Narayan & Ors.), vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the Order dated 20.01.2025 (Annx.5) passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.1, Phalodi in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/2024 (C.I.S. No. 12/2024) (Sourabh vs. Satya Narayan & Ors.) dismissing the application

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:13:47 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:42:15 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14483] (2 of 5) [CW-679/2026] under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., has

been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders passed by the courts below are arbitrary, perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law governing the adjudication

of applications for temporary injunction.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, and recovery of damages, and also moved an application for temporary injunction to protect the construction of a Gas Godown, which serves a public

utility, till the final disposal of the suit.

5. It is contended that the report submitted by the Patwari is wholly inadmissible, as the same was not approved by the Tehsildar, who has duly verified the existence and boundaries of the land in question. The petitioner purchased the disputed land forming part of Khasra No. 163 from respondent No. 1, and possession thereof was duly handed over, pursuant to which the petitioner after obtaining necessary NOCs/permissions and conversion order etc., raised construction and established LPG Gas Godown in accordance with law. The petitioner has placed on record relevant documents, including the sale deed, revenue map, and conversion order etc. permitting commercial construction of a LPG Gas Godown. However, the courts below have failed to consider these documents issued by competent authorities and have instead placed reliance solely on the report of the Patwari,

who is subordinate to the Tehsildar.

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:13:47 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:42:15 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14483] (3 of 5) [CW-679/2026] 6. It is further submitted that the dispute, if any, relates only to demarcation of boundaries, which is presently pending adjudication before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The courts below have failed to apply the settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction. It is well settled that establishing a prima facie case requires only the existence of a bona fide substantial question and not conclusive proof of title. Temporary injunctions are preventive in nature and do not entail a determination on merits. Prior to refusing such relief, the courts are required to consider the likelihood of irreparable injury and to balance the

comparative convenience of the parties.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the following decisions :-

i. Babu Lal and Oth