SBCWP No.242/2008 Ikrammudin & Ors Vs. ADJ, Parbatasar & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.242/2008 Ikrammudin & Ors Vs. ADJ, Parbatasar & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 1.4.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. SN Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. IR Choudhary, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first appellate court dated 1st Oct., 2007 by which the petitioners'-appellants' appeal against the refusal of the injunction prayer by the trial court by order dated 15th July, 2003 has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that two cross suits were filed, one by petitioners-appellants- plaintiffs and another filed by the respondents nos. 3 and 4. In the suit filed by the respondent no.3 and 4 with the consent of the parties on 12th July, 2006, it was ordered that both the parties shall maintain the status quo with respect to the property in dispute and shall not raise any construction nor will alienate the property. In spite of the said order in the suit filed by the respondent no.3 and 4, SBCWP No.242/2008 Ikrammudin & Ors Vs. ADJ, Parbatasar & Ors. 2 the trial court dismissed the injunction application of the petitioners-plaintiffs in petitioner's suit vide order dated 15th July, 2003 and appellate court has upheld the order. It is submitted that in view of the above, the two courts below have committed error of law by ignoring the order passed between the parties to maintain the status quo and refused the injunction to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the map drawn in the plaint itself of the suit filed by the petitioners-appellants which in CO No.43/2003 and the Commissioner's report Ex.7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that two properties are entirely different which is proved from the map drawn in the plaintiffs'-petitioners' suit – CO No.43/2003 and the map submitted by the respondents nos. 3 and 4 alongwith the plaint, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioners themselves . The respondents' suit is having no.40/2003 and the map is at page no.90. The respondents also have placed on record a detailed map (Annex.R/1). It is also submitted that it was never the case of the petitioners before the two courts SBCWP No.242/2008 Ikrammudin & Ors Vs. ADJ, Parbatasar & Ors. 3 below that property in the two suits is one. It is also submitted that there is a lot of difference between the map drawn by the plaintiffs in the plaint and the neighbourhood given by the respondents in their suit. It is also submitted that the two courts below when have not decided this question as not raised by the petitioners then this Court may not allow the petitioners to raise new ground to challenge the order of the courts below. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents referred above. It is clear from the order passed by the appellate court dated dated 1st Oct., 2007 that this issue was not raised by the petitioners nor there is reference of the order dated 12th July, 2006 in the order, which was passed by the appellate court on 1st Oct., 2007. Therefore, this issue cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and if the contention of the petitioners is accepted that the property is same then he cannot have any grievance against rejection of his injunction application because still the property will be covered by the order dated 12th July, 2006 provided it is the same property for which order was passed by the court on SBCWP No.242/2008 Ikrammudin & Ors Vs. ADJ, Parbatasar & Ors. 4 12th July, 2006. therefore, the issue of identity of the property/properties can be decided in main suit. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioners is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-