1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1551/2007 Jeenat Praveen & Others Versus The Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Others Date of Order :: 7th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Brij Sharma ) with ) for the petitioners Mr. Amit Ratnawat) BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in the trial court alongwith an application for temporary injunction. The defendants also filed an application for temporary injunction in the trial court. The trail court after hearing both the parties allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners and restrained the defendants from raising any construction and further passed an order that the construction raised by them over portion marked as A, B, C, D will be removed within a 2 period of 15 days at their own expenses. The application for temporary injunction filed by defendants was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed on the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defendants preferred an appeal before the first appellate court, who vide its order dated 8th September, 2006 partly allowed the appeal and it was directed that so far as demolition of construction already raised by defendants is concerned, to that extent the order of the trial court is set-aside and both the parties were directed to maintain the order of status- quo over the disputed property. It was also directed that no construction will be raised over the disputed property nor the same will be transferred to any one during the pendency of the suit. Being aggrieved with the same, this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that first appellate court has committed an illegality in setting aside the order passed by the trial court in respect of demolition of the construction raised by defendants, whereas from the finding of the trial court itself, it is clear that the 3 disputed property was belonging to plaintiffs and defendants wrongly raised the construction over it, therefore, trial court was right in passing an order of demolition of the said construction and without assigning any cogent reason, the first appellate court wrongly set- aside it, therefore, the order passed by first appellate court be set-aside and order passed by the trial court be restored. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below while deciding the application for temporary injunction as well as appeal. The first appellate court has considered the facts of the case in detail and also the reasons assigned by trial court while granting injunction order. The first appellate court was of the view that so far as construction already raised by defendants over the disputed property is concerned, the same may not be demolished during the pendency of the suit, otherwise the defendants will suffer irreparable loss. So far as the new construction to be raised by the defendants is concerned, the first appellate court has already restrained the defendants from raising any further construction and has 4 further restrained from alienating the property in dispute. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below, I find that first appellate court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. 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