SHAKUNTALA PAREEK Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.7.13 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.13, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Appeal No. 17/13, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the order dated 31.5.13 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (SD) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Application No. 2/13, dismissing the application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

(2.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner that the trial court had decided the application for temporary injunction without hearing he learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the appellate court has also not taken into consideration the said facts. According to him both the courts below have wrongly rejected the application seeking permanent injunction against the respondents.

(3.) In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, and had also filed the application for temporary injunction seeking temporary injunction, which has been dismissed by the trial court. The said order has also been confirmed by the appellate court. Both the courts have concurrently held that the petitioner-plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, and that he could not prove any prima facie case in his favour. The court does not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court had decided the application for temporary injunction without hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the order dated 31.5.13 it clearly transpires that the said order was passed after hearing both the learned counsels for the parties. There being concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below as regards the prima facie case and balance of convenience, this court exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the same.