// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5653/2008 Ashraf S/o Hasmal and Others Versus Chhotekhan S/o Hasmal and Others Date of Order ::: 04.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Manish Gupta, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioners as well as other defendants in the trial court along-with application for temporary injunction. The trial court passed ex-parte interim injunction on 13th February, 2008, whereby the defendant- petitioners were restrained from taking any electricity connection over the disputed boring. The interim injunction was extended from time to time. The matter was listed on 6th May, 2008. The plaintiffs did not file the process fee and notices along-with the copy of application, therefore, the court withdrew its interim injunction order dated 13th February, 2008 and // 2 // fixed the case for 22nd July, 2008. The plaintiffs moved another application on 6th May, 2008 itself for restoration of the interim injunction order passed in their favour. The said application was allowed on 17th May, 2008, and the trial court restored the interim injunction order dated 13th February, 2008 and fixed the case for reply to the application for temporary injunction on 22nd February, 2008. The said order restoring the interim injunction order is under challenge in this writ petition filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when interim injunction order was vacated on 6th May, 2008 then it could have been restored back and the trial court committed an illegality in restoring the interim injunction order vide order dated 17th May, 2008, therefore, the said order is liable to be set- aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also examined the interim order dated 13th February, 2008, which was extended from time to time, the order dated 6th May, 2008 and the order dated 17th May, 2008. It appears that the trial court has only restored the ex-parte interim injunction order // 3 // and the application for temporary injunction is still to be decided by it. The defendant- petitioners will have a right to oppose confirmation of ex-parte interim injunction order passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs. Although, the trial court has fixed the case for reply to the application for temporary injunction but the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners submits that they are the only contesting party in the plaint as well as temporary injunction application but the plaintiffs are unnecessarily delaying the matter, therefore, the trial court may be directed to decide the application for temporary injunction after hearing the defendant- petitioners finally on the next date i.e. 22nd July, 2008. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, I am not inclined to set-aside the order dated 17th May, 2008 passed by the trial court but at the same time I think it fit and proper in the interest of justice to direct the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction on 22nd July, 2008 or any other subsequent date to be fixed within a period of one week from that date. The defendant-petitioners are only the contesting defendants in the case, therefore, // 4 // the trial court will not wait for reply to the application for temporary injunction from other defendants. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//