SBCWP NO.9554/2008– F.R. LEELAR . V/S SRI CHAND DANGAR AND ANR. AND SBCCP NO.2/2009 – F.R. LEELAR V/S SRICHAND DANGAR AND ANR. . :JUDGMENT DTD.10.7.2009 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9554/2008 F.R. Leelar. Versus Shrichand Dangar and anr. 2. S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.2/2009 F.R. Leelar. Versus Shrichand Dangar and anr. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.G.R.Punia, for the petitioner. Mr.J.R.Patel, } Mr.R.S. Saluja } for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10th July, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. This petition is directed against the order dtd.19.11.2008 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. 2. The learned trial Court in the impugned order has observed that since in the previous order dtd.17.5.2008, the interim order was only to the effect that the defendant shall not carry out any construction SBCWP NO.9554/2008– F.R. LEELAR . V/S SRI CHAND DANGAR AND ANR. AND SBCCP NO.2/2009 – F.R. LEELAR V/S SRICHAND DANGAR AND ANR. . :JUDGMENT DTD.10.7.2009 2/3 without obtaining permission of the local body i.e. the Municipal Corporation, therefore, after that date, if the defendant has obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation which is said to have been obtained on 23.10.2008, therefore, the application under Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial Court. However, the matter for grant of temporary injunction after hearing both the parties is still pending before the learned trial Court. And the next date of hearing before the learned trial Court is 20.8.2009. 3. On the other hand, Mr. J.R. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed and the application for temporary injunction was also rejected by the learned trial Court, therefore, the present suit as well as application for temporary injunction is not maintainable and the defendant is entitled to carry on with construction subject to permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. This Court, while issuing the notices to the respondents vide order dtd.1.12.2008 had directed the respondents to maintain status quo as it existed on that day. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even despite this Court's order, the respondents continued with the construction, hence he has filed the contempt petition which is tagged with this file, namely, SB Civil Contempt Petition No.2/2009. SBCWP NO.9554/2008– F.R. LEELAR . V/S SRI CHAND DANGAR AND ANR. AND SBCCP NO.2/2009 – F.R. LEELAR V/S SRICHAND DANGAR AND ANR. . :JUDGMENT DTD.10.7.2009 3/3 5. However, at the time of hearing, both the learned counsels submitted at Bar that since the temporary injunction matter is still pending before the learned trial Court, the learned Trial Court may be directed to decide the temporary injunction application itself expeditiously preferably within a period of two weeks from today. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon submits that the interim order granted by this Court on 1.12.2008 directing the respondents to maintain status quo may be continued till the temporary injunction application is decided by the learned trial Court. 6. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dtd.14.11.2008, however, with a request to the learned trial Court to decide the temporary injunction application itself expeditiously preferably within a period of two weeks from today and not later than four weeks from today in any case. Till the temporary injunction application is decided, the interim order granted by this Court on 1.12.2008 shall continue and the respondents shall maintain status quo of the suit property as it exists today. 7. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner is also disposed of. The notices are discharged. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.84-85 Ss/-