// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8516/2004 Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Damodar & Another ...Petitioner Versus Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur, and others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 18.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for petitioners Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-respondent No.3 filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed executed in favour of the defendant-petitioners and for permanent injunction along- with the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the trial court, but, on an appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal and granted injunction against the defendant-petitioners restraining them from interfering in the possession of the land, in dispute, and further not to alienate the property to anyone during the pendency of the suit. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the appellate court, the defendant-petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land, in dispute, was purchased by the defendants from the grandfather of the plaintiff and the father of the plaintiff is witness to the said sale-deed, therefore, he is the rightful owner of the land in dispute and the first appellate court has committed an illegality in passing the injunction order against the defendants which // 2 // is liable to be set-aside by this Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent defended the impugned order passed by the first appellate court and prayed that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same may be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. This court initially stayed operation of the order passed by the appellate court vide order dated 24th November, 2005, but the same was modified after hearing both the parties on 27th February, 2006, and both the parties were directed to maintain the status-quo with regard to the property in dispute. The learned counsel for both the parties are claiming their respective possession over the disputed land and the disposal of the suit is likely to take time, therefore, the learned counsel for both the parties agreed and contended that the trial court may be directed to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year and in the meanwhile the order passed by this Court on 27th February, 2006, may remain in force. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year and in the meantime both the parties shall maintain the status-quo with regard to the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. There will be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 3 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.7340/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8516/2004 Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Damodar & Another ...Petitioner Versus Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur, and others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 18.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for petitioners Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//