1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

JUDGMENT

S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.296/2014

Shiv Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Date of judgment

:

28.10.2015

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Mr. N.K. Rastogi for the appellant.

Dr. Sachin Acharya for the respondent.

Mr. Bhanwar Singh Bhati, Secretary, Gram

Panchayat, Bijoliya, Bhilwara present in person.

BY THE COURT:-

This misc. appeal has been filed by the

appellant being aggrieved with the order dated

21.11.2013 passed by the Additional District

Judge No.1, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as

'the trial court') whereby the application filed

by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2

read with Section 151 C.P.C. for granting

temporary injunction against the non-petitioner

has been dismissed.

The appellant preferred the said

application for temporary injunction along with

a suit filed before the trial court for granting

decree of specific performance, declaration and

permanent injunction under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2

2

C.P.C.

In the suit as well as the application for

temporary injunction, the appellant claimed that

he purchased a plot measuring 90'x120' on

16.3.1992 from the respondent Gram Panchayat in

an open auction for Rs.1,00,000/-. It is

claimed that after conclusion of the auction

proceedings on 16.3.1992, the appellant

deposited Rs.10,000/- and thereafter deposited

Rs.90,000/- from time to time through various

receipts in the Gram Panchayat, but no patta was

issued to him. It is further averred in the

suit and the application for temporary

injunction that a notice was sent to the Gram

Panchayat through Advocate with a prayer that

registered sale deed be executed in favour of

the appellant for the plot purchased by him

through auction on 16.3.1992, but the Gram

Panchayat did not take any action.

The claim of the appellant raised in the

suit and the application for temporary

injunction was denied by the respondent Gram

Panchayat and it is contended that no such

auction proceeding, as claimed by the appellant,

has taken place and there are discrepancies in

3

the receipts of deposits produced by the

appellant as the file numbers mentioned in the

said receipt are different. It was also

contended on behalf of respondent Gram Panchayat

before the trial court that even if it is

assumed that the appellant has purchased any

such piece of land in the auction conducted by

the Gram Panchayat, then also the claim of the

appellant for execution of sale deed in respect

of the said plot is not maintainable because the

same is barred by limitation. The respondent

Gram Panchayat has contended that the notice

issued on behalf of the appellant through

Advocate is also contrary to the provisions of

Panchayati Raj Rules.

The learned trial court, after taking into

consideration the arguments advanced on behalf

of learned counsel for the parties, has rejected

the application filed by the appellant under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary

injunction against the respondents vide impugned

order dated 21.11.2013.

Assailing the validity of order dated

21.11.2013, learned counsel for the appellant

has argued that the appellant deposited the

4

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from time to time with

the respondent Gram Panchayat and despite

request to the Gram Panchayat and various

authorities, the sale deed has not been executed

in his favour. It is also argued that before

the trial court various receipts regarding the

deposit of amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-

have been produced, but the trial court has

ignored the said receipts and has illegally

refused to grant temporary injunction in favour

of the appellant. Learned counsel for the

appellant has further argued that the appellant

has deposited penalty amount on a demand notice

issued by the Gram Panchayat for the