// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7366/2007 Bhagwan Singh s/o Shri Ganga Singh and Others Versus Divisional Reference Center Incharge, Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan Development Division, Aarai, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer and Others Date of Order ::: 23.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Vishwajeet Mantri, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 27th August, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, whereby he refused to pass any interim injunction order during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court in a representative capacity against the defendant-respondents along-with an application for temporary injunction. The // 2 // defendants filed their reply to the application for temporary injunction along- with another application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiffs prayed for interim injunction but the same was refused vide impugned order and fixed the case for reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when the reply to the application for temporary injunction had already been filed by the defendants then it was a duty of the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction first but neither the said application was fixed for arguments nor any interim order has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore the trial court committed an illegality in not passing an interim order in favour of the plaintiffs. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order be quashed and the interim injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs or the trial court be directed to decide the application for temporary injunction first at the earliest. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and also // 3 // examined the impugned order dated 27th August, 2007. It appears that on 27th August, 2007 the defendants filed their reply to the application for temporary injunction along- with another application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiffs sought time to file reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was allowed. It appears from the order that the application for temporary injunction was not fixed for arguments in spite of the fact that the reply had already been filed. The trial court should have fixed the TI application also for arguments along-with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners I am of the view that the order dated 27th August, 2007 is an interlocutory order and no interference in it can be made by this Court at this stage but, in the interest of justice, I think it fit and proper to direct the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioners as soon as possible. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial // 4 // court to decide the application of the plaintiff-petitioners for temporary injunction as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of submission/receipt of the order. A copy of this order may be sent to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, District Ajmer. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//