1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1621/08 Bhola & Ors. vs. Subhash & Ors. Date of order : 22/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri V.S. Gurjar for the petitioners. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.1.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hindaun City whereby the appeal of the plaintiff- petitioner against the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hindaun City refusing to grant injunction has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that injunction should not have been refused by the Court below against the suit filed by the petitioner challenging the decree passed by SDO dated 4.7.1970 in the revenue suit of the respondent on the ground that such decree was without jurisdiction and was still pending. It was argued that if the petitioners are dispossessed from the 2 disputed land even before decision of the suit, they would suffer irreparable loss inasmuch as they have got a prima facie case because the land in dispute has now come within the limit of Municipal Town, Hindaun and therefore the revenue suit was not at all maintainable. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Srimohan @ Mohan Lal Joshi Vs. Sitaram Joshi [1997 (2) WLC (Raj.) 28]. It was submitted that though appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgments and decree of the SDO were successively dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as also by the Board of Revenue, but the objection as to the jurisdiction was raised by the petitioners before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3943/99 titled Bhola Ram & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. This Court however rejected the objection on the premise that such objection was not raised in the written statement and cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the writ petition. Learned counsel argued that there was no decision on the merits of the objections as such by this Court and that it was rejected 3 only on technical ground that it was raised for the first time before this Court. In the circumstances, the learned courts below have wrongly proceeded on the footing that the petitioners would have no prima facie case, just because all revenue courts have decided in favour of the respondents in the earlier litigation. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, I find that the revenue suit for recovery of possession was filed by the petitioners which was decreed by the learned SDO. The appeal preferred thereagainst before the Revenue Appellate Authority was dismissed vide its judgment dated 20.2.1999. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners was thereafter dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 1.4.1999. It was thereafter that the petitioners filed writ petition before this Court which too was rejected vide judgment dated 21.11.2006. The decree passed in favour of the respondents herein cannot therefore be allowed to be frustrated by issue of fresh injunction order which, even otherwise, has 4 attained the finality as the judgment of learned Single Judge passed by this Court on 21.11.2006 has not been challenged any further. I am therefore in agreement with the view taken by the courts below which have concurrently declined to pass the injunction order in favour of the petitioners. There being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed summarily. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/