// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3560/2005 Om Prakash S/o Prabhu Dayal Versus Addl. District Judge Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 23.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Y.C. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri M.M. Ranjan with Shri H.N. Khandelwal, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in respect of the disputed property. An application for temporary injunction was also filed, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 24th July, 2003 and both the parties were directed to maintain the status-quo in respect of the disputed plot of land. However, on an appeal filed on behalf of the defendants, the appellate court set-aside the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction. The order of the appellate court has been challenged by the plaintiff in this writ petition. While issuing notice to show cause, this Court, vide order dated 16th May, 2005, directed that in the meanwhile the // 2 // operation of the order dated 20th April, 2005, passed by the appellate court shall remain stayed. The said order is continuing since then. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff about prima-facie case and granted an order of status-quo, which has wrongly been set-aside by the appellate court. However, this Court on 16th May, 2005 was pleased to pass the order staying the operation of the order passed by the appellate court, and the same is still continuing, therefore, it will be just and proper as well as in the interest of justice to continue the stay order passed by this court during the pendency of the suit, while directing the trial court to decide the suit itself as early as possible preferably within a period of one year. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial court committed an illegality in recording a finding about prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the appellate court was justified in setting-aside the same and dismissing the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement relating to disputed plot of land, wherein the trial court allowed the application for temporary // 3 // injunction and directed both the parties to maintain the status- quo in respect of the disputed plot of land. However, the appellate court set-aside the order passed by the trial court, but this court, vide order dated 16th May, 2005, stayed the operation of the order of the appellate court. The order passed by this Court is continuing for last three years. I have examined the reasons assigned by both the courts below and, after considering the same in the light of submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I find that the appellate court has committed an illegality in setting-aside the order passed by the trial court. I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the order of status- quo is necessary to be passed during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.04.2005 passed by the appellate court is set-aside and the order of the trial court is restored and it is directed that both the parties shall maintain the status-quo in respect of disputed plot of land during the pendency of the suit. The suit was filed in the year 2001, therefore, in the interest of justice, I direct the trial court to decide the suit itself as early as possible preferably within a period of one year. A copy of this order may be sent to the trial court. There shall be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 4 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.3141/2005 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3560/2005 Om Prakash S/o Prabhu Dayal Versus Addl. District Judge Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 23.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Y.C. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri M.M. Ranjan with Shri H.N. Khandelwal, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//