1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Dev Raj Singh Vs. Additional District Judge, Parbatsar and Others. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 7209/2006 ......... Date of Order : 27/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR BY THE COURT Mr. Anil Kumar Signh for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Sharma for the respondents. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annex.7 dated 24.11.2006 and order Annex.6 dated 6.10.2006 passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction as also dismissing the appeal by order Annex.7. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner filed a civil suit before the respondent No.2 for permanent injunction and along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the suit was filed. The application seeking temporary injunction came to be dismissed by the respondent No.2 by order Annex.6. That order Annex.6 came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the respondent No.1. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dismissing the application seeking temporary injunction also came to be dismissed. Hence this writ petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sold some part of the land to the respondents No.3 to 7 by a registered sale deed, however, the respondents are not only started raising construction on the land sold to them but also started raising construction on the remaining part of the land owned by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction and during pendency of the suit for some period there was an order of maintaining status-quo. It appears that the petitioner came with a case that the respondents violated the order of status-quo passed by the 3 respondent No.2 and filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC alleging therein that the respondents have committed the willful disobedience of the order of maintaining status-quo. It appears that, the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC as well as the application seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC came to be dismissed. Both the Courts below did not find case in favour of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. There are three essentials viz. the person seeking temporary injunction is to establish prima- facie case, balance of convenience as also that in the event of non-grant of temporary injunction, the person would suffer irreparable loss or injury, which the petitioner failed to establish before the courts below i.e. respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Mohd. Sarif Vs. ADJ No.2 Sikar and Anr. 2004 (1) WLC (Raj.) 300 wherein this Court held that main purpose of injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in status quo for the time being. While disposing an application for grant of temporary injunction, the court should not go to the extent of deciding the main case of the parties but the order should be a speaking order showing that the court has taken a decision after applying its mind. The decision vested in court should be exercised on reasons and sound judicial principles. 4 It is also settled law that for grant of temporary injunction, three essentials as noticed above i.e. prima-case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury have to be established by the person seeking temporary injunction. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to establish these three essentials as noticed above and therefore, the court below dismissed the application seeking temporary injunction. The respondents purchased the land from the petitioner by a registered sale deed, this fact has not been disputed by either of the parties. The question only remains as to whether the respondents constructed the building on the land purchased by them by a registered sale deed or beyond that and that question can only be decided by the evidence when the parties lead evidence before the trial court and the suit filed in the year 2006 as stated by the learned counsel for the parties, is pending. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, it would be more appropriate to direct the court below to decide the main suit itself. The decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner turns on its own facts and is of no help to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondent No.2 shall take up the civil suit filed by the petitioner 5 on priority basis and conclude the trial of the same utmost expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of producing the certified copy of this order. Both the parties to appear before the civil court and cooperate in the trial of the suit without seeking unreasonable adjournments in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 6 S.B.Civil Misc. II Stay Petition No. 6457/08 IN S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 7209/06 ......... Date of Order : 27/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Anil Kumar Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Sharma for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the second stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp