ABDUL KARIM AND ANR. Vs. ABDUL SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To assail validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 10.10.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner, this appeal as per the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred.

(2.) By the order impugned, learned trial court rejected the application preferred by the plaintiff appellants seeking a temporary injunction. Learned trial court held that no temporary injunction of mandatory in nature could have been granted as even in the plaint no prayer has made seeking a mandatory injunction to open the lock of the shop in dispute and to permit the plaintiffs to undergo business peacefully thereon.

(3.) It is contended by counsel for the appellants that this Court in Mahaveer Dass v/s. M/s. Ganeshmal Jeevraj, reported in, 1991 CCC 145 (Raj) :, 1991(2) RLW 543, held that the Court can decide the application for grant of temporary injunction even though a relief for permanent injunction has not been added in the main suit. It is also contended by counsel for the appellants that the order impugned is bad in eye of law as the trial court failed to consider the documents placed on record, reference of those is given in para 7 of the memo of appeal.