HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6175/2022

Hariram S/o Rooparam, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Suthar,

Resident Of Redana, Presently Residing At Indira Colony, Barmer,

Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

Moru Devi W/o Amritlal, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Redana,

Presently Residing At Indira Colony, Street No.8, Barmer, Tehsil

And District Barmer (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate

assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

18/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India being aggrieved with the order dated

07.03.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer

(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the appellate court’) whereby, the

appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The said appeal

was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order

dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.1,

Barmer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) on an

application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151

CPC whereby, the parties were directed to maintain status quo till

the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff

has filed a suit before the trial court seeking permanent injunction

(2 of 4)

[CW-6175/2022]

claiming that a piece of land was purchased by her father-in-law

and later on the same was transferred in her name, but the

petitioner-defendant is trying to encroach over the said piece of

land, therefore, he may be restrained from interfering in the

peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff by way of issuing

permanent injunction.

Along with the said suit, an application for temporary

injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151

CPC is also filed. Reply to the said application was filed on behalf

of the petitioner-defendant wherein, it was claimed that as a

matter of fact, the father-in-law of the respondent-plaintiff was

owner of one of the plots and not the owner of the entire land. In

support of the above contention, the petitioner-defendant has

furnished copies of the agreement to sale executed in favour of

him and the other persons and has also placed on record certain

documents claiming that in one of the complaints initiated at the

instance of the husband of the respondent-plaintiff, the police has

clearly opined that the documents on which the respondent-

plaintiff is placing reliance are forged one.

The trial court after taking into consideration the

documentary evidence produced on behalf of the parties

concerned has come to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff

is able to prove prima facie case in her favour as also the balance

of convenience in her favour. The trial court while partly allowing

the temporary application has directed the parties to maintain

status quo as it exists on the date of passing of the order till the

pendecy of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

Being aggrieved with the temporary injuction order passed

by the trial court, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before

(3 of 4)

[CW-6175/2022]

the appellate court, however, the appellate court after hearing

counsel for the parties has affirmed the order passed by the trial

court on the temporary injuction application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie case before the

trial court and, in such circumstances, the trial court has illegally

passed the order on the temporary injuction application and

directed the parties to maintain status quo till the pendency of the

suit. It is further submitted that the petitioner-defendant has

proved before both the courts below by producing documentary