// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7494/2006 Jagdish s/o Shri Bholu and Others Versus District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 28.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri M.M. Ranjan with Shri Rajat Sharma, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Plaintiff-respondents No.3 to 5 instituted a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of disputed property in the trial court against the defendant-petitioners along-with an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial court and both the parties were directed to maintain the status- quo. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendants but without success, hence this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the defendants. The learned counsel for the petitioners // 2 // contended that the defendants are in possession of the disputed property for last forty years, therefore, both the courts below committed an illegality in passing the order of status-quo in respect of the disputed property, therefore, both the orders are liable to be set-aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below for granting an order of status-quo i.e. injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial court has considered the facts of the case in detail while deciding the issue of prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. The appellate court has affirmed the finding of the trial court, therefore, there is concurrent finding by both the courts below in respect of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant-petitioners. Both the orders passed by both the courts below are perfectly justified. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said // 3 // orders so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//