1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 5785 of 2007 CHHOTTU LAL V/S LRS OF RAMPAL Mr. AK ACHARYA, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 21.9.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders Annexure 3 and 5 whereby the petitioner's application for temporary injunction has been dismissed by the learned courts below. The necessary facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction, and cancellation of decree. Along with that suit the petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction praying that during pendency of the suit the temporary injunction be issued directing the defendant or his power of attorney or representative, not to take any step in execution of the decree, not to take possession, nor to dispossess the plaintiff petitioner, and the execution proceedings be stayed. A look at the impugned order Annexure-5 shows that 2 even according to the petitioner, in execution of the decree the wall “K to L” has been demolished, and possession has been taken of the portion “K N L”, and thus the plaintiff's suit has been rendered meaningless. In my view, in such circumstances, no interference is required to be made in the impugned order so as to grant any injunction when the decree has already been executed. It is a different story that even according to the plaintiff he had purchased the property on 9.7.1997 i.e. during pendency of the previous litigation, and in the sale deed the factum of pendency of the litigation is clearly mentioned, and it has also been mentioned that the purchaser will be bound by the consequences of the litigation. Thus, considering from any stand point, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/