HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5032/2019

Banwarilal S/o Shri Rudaram, Aged About 70 Years, By Caste

Kumhar, R/o Mothuka, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar.

----Defendant/Petitioner

Versus

Sheeshram S/o Shri Rudaram, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste

Kumhar, R/o Mothuka, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar.

----Plaintiff/Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Rahul Agarwal

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

11/04/2019

The petitioner by this writ petition assails the order

dated 05.05.2016 passed by the trial Court on application moved

for seeking temporary injunction by both, petitioner as well as the

respondent and also the order passed by the Appellate Court

dated 15.12.2018 whereby the order passed by the trial Court has

been affirmed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant

submits that the defendant had moved an application praying for

restraining from interfering with the peaceful possession of the

property which was in their possession for last more than 100

years. While respondent-plaintiff had filed an application praying

for restraining the petitioner from using the property on three

contrary grounds, firstly the plaintiff has easementary rights over

(2 of 2)

[CW-5032/2019]

the property, secondly on the ground i.e. public road and thirdly

that he was in possession of the property.

Counsel therefore submits that in the circumstance his

T.I. application could not have been accepted and both the courts

below have fallen in error in granting temporary injunction.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

finds that both the courts below have only passed an order

directing that the parties shall maintain status quo relating to the

disputed property at the site and the record relating to the said

property. Rights of the parties are yet to be examined and

considered in the main suit. Concurrent findings of fact are not to

be examined or disturbed in writ jurisdiction under article 227, as

this Court cannot sit over the matter for over the years. Factual

findings thus have to be left for the concerned Courts for disposal

of the suits. Law in this regard is well settled in view of law laid

down in Waryam Singh Vs. Amarnath: 1954 SCR 565.

In view thereof, the writ petition is held to be

misconceived and the same is dismissed.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

JKP/Arun/41