1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5801/2008 {Ved Rathore Versus Munshiram & Others} 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5551/2008 {Laxman Versus Additional District Judge & Others} Date of Order :: 23rd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Manish Gupta for the petitioner Mr. Gajendra Singh for the respondents BY THE COURT: Both the writ petitions arise out of one suit in between both the parties, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. A copy of this order may be placed on record in connected matter. 2. Both the writ petitions are admitted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The plaintiff – Ved Rathore filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed property alongwith an application for temporary injunction. The defendants also filed an application for temporary injunction seeking relief to restrain the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the application of the 2 plaintiff but allowed the application filed by defendants and restrained the plaintiff from interfering with the possession of the defendants over the property in dispute. Being aggrieved with the same, two misc. appeals were preferred by plaintiff before the first appellate court. The first appellate court while allowing the appeal arising out of the temporary injunction application filed by plaintiff, directed both the parties to maintain the status-quo, but so far as the appeal arising out of the application filed by defendants is concerned, did not interfere and upheld the order of the trial court, meaning thereby the plaintiff has been restrained as per direction of the trial court. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid two orders, two separate writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of both the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that property in dispute was one and same, therefore, first appellate court committed an illegality in passing an order of status-quo only in his appeal arising out of his application for temporary injunction, whereas plaintiff has been restrained by first appellate court by upholding the order of trial 3 court passed on an application filed by defendant, whereas a parity should have been maintained and both the parties should have been directed to maintain the status-quo in respect of disputed property. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial court considered the facts of the case in detail and rightly passed injunction order in favour of the defendants restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the peaceful possession over the property in dispute. He, therefore, contended that the writ petition filed by plaintiff be dismissed and his writ petition be allowed and order of status-quo passed should also be vacated. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by both the courts below in both the cases. The detailed facts have been mentioned in both the orders and after considering the same in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for both the parties, I think it fit and proper to pass an order of status-quo in respect of disputed property in both the applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff 4 as well as defendants. 8. Consequently both the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to both the parties to maintain the status-quo in respect of disputed property during the pendency of the suit. The orders of both the court below, to the above extent, stand modified. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK