1 35 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2633/2008. Mahendra Singh Vs. Champalal & Anr. Date of Order :: 1st May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. K.C.Samdariya, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order dated 28.03.2008 (Annex.10) as passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the prayer in the nature of mandatory injunction as made by the plaintiff-petitioner by way of an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annex.8) for opening of the disputed shop during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction. The learned Trial Court has observed that the main application for temporary injunction was yet to be decided and the application as moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC could only be considered as premature; and has not found any justification for entertaining the separate application for issuance of a mandatory order. It appears that there is a serious dispute between the parties regarding the possession of the shop in question; and, 2 while the petitioner has filed the suit for perpetual injunction claiming himself to be the tenant in the suit for premises and has filed application for temporary injunction (Annex.2) praying that the defendant should be prohibited from forcibly dispossessing him and has also made a prayer that if he is dispossessed during the pendency of the suit after service of notice, the possession be restored; it appears that on the other hand, the defendant has also made a counter prayer against the petitioner, and may be has filed a separate suit (as mentioned in the reply Annexure-9). In the circumstances of the case, the order as passed by learned Trial Court, treating the application under Section 151 CPC to be premature, cannot be said to unjust , illegal or suffering from any jurisdictional error. The writ petition is rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni