ROOPA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 5.9.2007 passed by respondent No.3 Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Didwana, district Nagaur dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as also order dated 19.1.2008 passed by respondent No.4 Additional District Judge, Didwana, district Nagaur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.9.2007.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the order passed by respondents No.3 and 4 respectively.

(3.) It appears that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.3 claiming old possession and along with the suit, an application under Order Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the suit. By a well reasoned and elaborate order, the respondent No.3 dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as the petitioner before the respondent No.3 failed to show the prima-facie case in his favour as also balance of convenience and irreparable injury and all the three points which are necessary for seeking temporary injunction were decided against the petitioner. On an appeal before the respondent No.4, the appellate court did not find any error in the order passed by respondent No.3. It appears that the petitioner claimed to be in possession of the Govt. land and for which Tehsildar initiated proceeding under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act for evicting the trespassers. On such proceeding initiated by the Tehsildar, a suit was filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction. In my view, both the courts below were justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. The essential ingredients i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner have not been established by the petitioner before the respondent No.3.