GOVIND RAM CHOTIYA Vs. SANWARMAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Nawalgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2011 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jhunjhunu whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a civil suit for partition, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents-defendants, before the learned trial court. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. However, by order dated order dated 16.9.2009, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Against the order dated 16.9.2009, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Judge by order dated 18.1.2011. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that there are certain observations which have been made by both the courts below whereby they have accepted a partition agreement dated 6.8.1987 as the gospel truth. These observations could not have been made even before the trial had actually commenced, and before the evidence could be led by either of the side. However, the anxiety of the petitioner is that these observations will create obstacles and may influence the final decision of the case.