1 27 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8524/2007. Heera Lal Vs. The District Judge, Sirohi & Ors. Date of Order :: 21st January 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. The petitioner has been allotted 10 ft. x 9 ft. piece of land for the purpose of setting up a Kiosk. While claiming her possession on the land in question and questioning the entitlement of the petitioner to be allotted such piece of land for Kiosk, the respondent No.3 has filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against raising of any construction by the petitioner on the land in question; and also filed an application seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC that came to be allowed by the learned trial court on 27.01.2006 (Annex.4). The order so passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed by the appellate court by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on 22.08.2006 (Annex.5). Seeking to assail the orders aforesaid, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant only on 17.12.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff (respondent No.3) has neither any title nor possession 2 over the land in question and no injunction could have been issued in her favour; and that the petitioner is suffering serious injury for being deprived of using the land in question for the purpose it has been allotted, and is required to carry on his business in the open. Without final comments on the merits of the case, this Court finds after perusing the orders passed by the learned subordinate courts that temporary injunction has been issued against the petitioner after consideration of all the material available on record and with application of relevant principles. The orders impugned do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or from any such error apparent on the face of the record that requires interference in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. Noteworthy it is that temporary injunction was issued by the learned trial court on 27.01.2006 and the appeal against the same was dismissed by the appellate court on 22.08.2006 but this writ petition seeking to challenge the orders aforesaid has been filed only on 17.12.2007 and for all this period, the temporary injunction has remained in operation. There appears no reason to take up this matter for any further consideration at this length of time and it appears appropriate that the order of temporary injunction hitherto operating be not interfered with. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner in the last submitted that the trial court may be directed to decide the suit expeditiously. Suffice is to say in this regard that it is always open for the petitioner to make such a prayer before the trial court and it cannot be assumed that if any such prayer is made, the same would not receive due consideration by the court concerned. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/