IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 6.3.2009. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19/2009 Rishiraj Singh Vs. Om Prakash Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Anil Mehta, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter comes up on the application submitted by the respondent for vacation of the interim order. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the submissions on the application as well as on the writ petition are identical the writ petition itself may be decided. In the present writ petition the petitioner who is the plaintiff has challenged t he order passed by the learned District Judge whereby he has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent defendant against the order passed by the learned trial court allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and has passed an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant respondent to maintain the status quo. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and the record. The learned appellate court while accepting the appeal vide its judgment dated 11.12.2008 has taken into consideration that the sale in favour of the defendant by the predecessor in title of the plaintiff is prior in point of time to that of the plaintiff. The Vendor who transferred the property in dispute to the plaintiff had sold the land to the defendant and thereafter the land was sold to the plaintiff who obtained the lease deed patta from the Municipal Board. The learned appellate court taking into consideration the fact that having executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant earlier in the year 1997 the Vendor had advised himself of his rights over the property in dispute and he could not have dealt with the property in any manner so as to either sell the same to the plaintiff or proceed under Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 for creating any rights in favour of the plaintiff petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court does not call for any interference as there is no jurisdictional error having been committed by the learned lower appellate court. In the facts and circumstances of the case therefore the application bearing No.4701 filed by the respondent is allowed. The interim order is vacated. The writ petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS