CHAUTHMAL Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT No.17/1997 titled as Shyam Lal Vs. Chauthmal and Ors. filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by respondent No.1 Shyam Lal was decreed on 27.9.2008 by Civil Judge (J.D.), Lalsot, District, Dausa. Chauthmal and Ors. filed an appeal and that Appeal No.1/2009 was dismissed by ADJ (Fast Track) Bandikui, H.Q. Dausa On 31.5.2011 and then Chauthmal and Ors filed Civil Revision Petition No.74/2011 in this Court and this Court also dismissed the said revision petition with the observation that if the petitioners (Chauthmal and Ors) file any suit for declaration of their title, the observations made by the trial court, contained in Para 18 of the judgment, shall not come in the way of court concerned in taking its own decision in the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it in the court of trial of that case and those observations were made only in the context deciding application, thus, of the Specific Relief Act, which is summary proceedings and not after full fledged trial.

(2.) AS per the liberty given by this Court to the appellants (Chauthmal and Ors), they have filed a Civil Suit for declaration of their title in the Court of ADJ, Lalsot, District, Dausa but their temporary injunction application No.66/2013 has again been partly dismissed by the ADJ, Lalsot, District, Dausa on 5.3.2014.

(3.) IN this appeal, order dated 5.3.2014 of ADJ, Lalsot has been challenged by the appellants (Chauthmal and Ors) and it has been argued that the impugned order is against the law and against the material available on record. It has been argued that the decree obtained by the respondents under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is in summary proceedings and that decree does not make out a prima facie case in favour of the respondents. It has further been argued by the appellants that a strong prima facie case exists in favour of the appellants and so the lower court should have accepted their application for temporary injunction in totality and the respondents should have been restrained from taking possession of the suit property in execution proceedings in furtherance of the decree passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.