1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7542/2008 {Jambu Bhai & Another Versus The Additional District & Session Judge no.3 & Others} Date of Order :: 6th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Ratan Kaushik for the petitioners Mr. Anil Mehta for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Anil Mehta accepts notice of respondents no. 2 to 8. The service of respondent no.1 and 9 is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of disputed property alongwith an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial court. However, on an appeal preferred on behalf of the defendants, the order passed by the trial court was set-aside and application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 2 contended that the appellate court has committed an illegality in setting-aside the order passed by the trial court on the ground that earlier suit filed by Ramnath decided their rights. He contended that they were not a party to the said litigation and further that the subject matter of both the suits were altogether different. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial court did not consider the material evidence placed on record while allowing the application for temporary injunction. The said evidence was considered by the first appellate court and rightly set-aside the order passed by the trial court. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined both the orders passed by the trial court as well as first appellate court. The first appellate court has considered the sanction for raising the construction dated 30.10.2002 issued by the Municipal Council, Jaipur in favour of the defendants and has observed that the construction which is being raised by the defendants is being raised under the valid permission granted by the Municipal Council, Jaipur, therefore, they cannot be restrained by 3 way of an injunction. The first appellate court has also observed that earlier the disputed piece of land was belonged to Ramnath and others and plaintiff purchased the same from them, therefore, Ramnath filed a suit earlier on the plea that the disputed temple is a public temple. The said contention was negatived vide order dated 27.8.1992 and it was held that Ramnath and others failed to prove their rights over the said property. After considering the submissions as well as the reasons assigned by the both the courts below, I find that the reasons assigned by first appellate court are fully justified in the eye of law. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the first appellate court, 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. DK