RAMESH CHAND MEENA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the orders dated 24th April, 2006 and 10th March, 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur and Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Gangapur City, respectively.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that a suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the defendants-respondents together with an application for temporary injunction before the learned trial court. The learned trial court, having analyzed the matter ad-longum dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 10th March, 2006. Aggrieved with the order dated 10th March, 2006, the plaintiff - petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court also, vide its order dated 24th April, 2006, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner and affirmed the order of the trial court. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below.

(3.) IN this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction after reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below and remand the case to the Additional Judicial Commissioner.