IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1796/2007 Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Ratan Devi & Ors. 26.5.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Sudesh Bansal, for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is aggrieved on account of the impugned order dated 27.2.2007 by which his application under order 39 rule 2A CPC has been dismissed by the learned trial court. I have perused the impugned order more particularly the finding given in para 13 thereof and I find that so far as the grievances of the plaintiff appellant is concerned the learned court below has recorded that the defendant respondent herein has given an undertaking before the learned court below which reads as follows : "जहां तक मकान से बेदखल न करने व उपयोग उपभोग मɅ बाधा न डालने का ूँ न है, इस संबंध मɅ बहस के दौरान अूाथȸ के अिधवÈ ता ने ः वीकार Ǒकया Ǒक ूाथȸ कभी भी आकर वहां रह सकता है ।" In view of the above the grievance which has been raised by the plaintiff appellant does not survive. So far as the question of dispossession is concerned the learned trial court relying upon the material on record including the final report given on FIR No.335/1996 by the police on the FIR registered for the offence under Section 380 IPC on investigation it was found that the theory of dispossession and taking away the goods was false as the goods were found in possession of the of the appellant in another house at Mansarovar. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. The learned trial court be informed not to send the record to this court which had been summoned vide orde dated 19.9.2007. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS