PREM DEVI Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT SHIVAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -plaintiff, challenging the order dt. 10.03.2014 passed by the District & Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court") in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 56/2013, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner, and confirmed the order dt. 03.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate First Class Sawaimadhopur in Civil Misc. Application No. 29/2013. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner -plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent -gram panchayat seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction for restraining the respondent -gram panchayat from allotting the open space for putting 'takta' on the road near the shop of the petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide the order dt. 03.10.2013, against which the appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which also came to be dismissed vide the impugned order passed by the appellate Court.

(2.) IT is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Madhusudan Sharma for the petitioner that the respondent -gram panchayat on one hand had given notice for removing the encroachment made on the road, and on the other hand the respondent -gram panchayat was bent upon auctioning the open space on the road for putting 'takta'. According to him, because of such 'takta' permitted to be put by the respondent -gram panchayat, the business of the petitioner would be affected, and a lot of inconvenience would be caused to the general public. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the petitioner had failed to prove any prima facie case in her favour either before the trial Court or before the appellate Court. In the present petition also, the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the 'takta' proposed to be put by the respondent -gram panchayat is likely to obstruct the way for going to the temple or cause inconvenience to the general public. The appellate Court has observed that the road going to the temple is sufficiently big, and the petitioner cannot restrain the gram panchayat from auctioning the open space for putting 'takta' on the road, which is legally permissible. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.