// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6047/2008 Sohan Lal S/o Samppu Versus Municipal Board, Karauli through its Commissioner and Others Date of Order ::: 07.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction along-with an application for temporary injunction in the trial court. An application for appointment of Commissioner was also filed which was allowed and, after submitting the Commissioner's report on 27th January, 2007, the trial court passed an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner till next date, which was extended from time to time, and vide order dated 9th April, 2007 the trial court allowed the application for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved with the same an appeal was preferred by the defendant No.1 Municipal Board, Karauli. The Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, // 2 // Karauli, vide its order dated 24th March, 2008, set-aside the order of the trial court dated 9th April, 2007 and remanded the matter to the trial court to pass fresh order on the application for temporary injunction with an observation that it is necessary to decide the objection of defendant about Commissioner's report. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner contended that the defendants did not file any objection against the Commissioner's report, therefore, the observation of the learned first appellate court is absolutely illegal. He, therefore, contended that the order passed by the first appellate court be set- aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the impugned order passed by the first appellate court. I have also examined the order passed by the trial court as well as the documents annexed with the writ petition. It appears that the defendant Municipal Board filed an application before the first appellate court stating that the Commissioner's report has neither been prepared in their presence nor it bears their signature whereas the trial court has given its judgment on that basis, therefore, fresh report may be obtained // 3 // by appointing another Commissioner. The first appellate court has observed that the Commissioner went in the office of the Municipal Board and an official told him that Commissioner is not present and he refused to put his signature. The first appellate court in the interest of justice remanded the matter to the trial court. The aforesaid facts show that the application for temporary injunction is now pending before the trial court for adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite-party has started construction, therefore, now there is urgency and some interim order is required to be passed in the interest of justice. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the impugned order dated 24th March, 2008 passed by the first appellate court, I think it fit and proper to direct the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction as soon as possible. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the trial court for passing interim injunction during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction in pursuance of the order passed by the first appellate court. In the interest of justice, I grant ten days time to the petitioner to // 4 // approach the trial court for the said purpose and it is directed that for a period of ten days both the parties shall maintain the status-quo on the disputed piece of land. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//