IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4113 of 2004. Desh Bandhu son of Shri Mohan Lal & Others VERSUS Agarwal Madhopuria Panchyat Trust, Beawar & Others Date Of Order ::: 25/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. J.P. Gupta, Counsel for the respondents BY THIS COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial Court in respect of disputed property against the defendant/respondents, along with an application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved with the same, the miscellaneous appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs, which was also dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition challenging both the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the disputed property is in possession of the plaintiffs since long and their possession is also proved from a fact that Mohan Lal and Jatan Devi, who have transferred the property to the defendant nos.1 and 2, had filed a suit for possession against the plaintiffs, but the defendant nos.1 and 2 wanted to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly, therefore, it became necessary for them to file the present suit for injunction, therefore, he contended that when the possession of the plaintiffs is proved, then it was a duty of the Courts below to protect the possession of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit, and both the Courts below committed an illegality in dismissing the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that both the Courts below have examined the matter in detail and recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have no title whatsoever in respect of disputed property, therefore, they are not entitled for any injunction whatsoever in their favour. Therefore, the orders passed by both the Courts below are legal and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders dated 22.10.2002 and 30.04.2004 passed by the trial as well as Appellate Courts. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction in respect of disputed property. The defendants filed their reply, wherein they admitted that a suit bearing no.166/76 was filed against the plaintiffs by Mohan Lal, which is pending for adjudication in the Court itself. The possession of plaintiffs has not been disputed by the defendants. The possession of the plaintiffs is also proved from Civil Suit No.166/76. I find that both the Courts below have not considered and discussed the said plea of the plaintiffs that their possession over disputed property is proved from civil suit no.166/76 itself. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the judgments passed by the both the Courts below, I find that the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed property is prima-facie proved. Both the Courts below have not considered the effect of suit no.166/76 for possession filed by Mohan Lal against the plaintiffs. The said fact should have been taken into consideration by both the Courts below while deciding an application for temporary injunction, as the question of possession is material and relevant at this stage. In such circumstances, I find that both the Courts below have committed serious illegality in not granting injunction in faovur of the petitioners protecting their possession during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below dated 22.10.2002 and 30.04.2004 are set aside. The application filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction is allowed and it is directed that both the parties shall maintain the status-quo in respect of disputed property during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs will not raise any constructions over the disputed property and the defendants will not dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. There will be no order as to costs. The present suit was filed in the year, 2002, therefore, I direct the trial Court to conclude the trial of the suit, as soon as possible preferably within a period of one-year. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/