- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 5th February, 2004 as also the order dated 7th February, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Lalsot and District Judge, Dausa, respectively.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that a suit for permanent injunction together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC came to be filed by the respondents Nanaga & Ors. against the petitioners-respondents in the year 2003. Having heard both the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application and directed both the parties to maintain the status-quo with regard to the property in dispute. Aggrieved with the order dated 5th February, 2004, the petitioners-defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Dausa and that also stood dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) It is relevant to record at this stage that there has been concurrent finding of two courts below with regard to the facts of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in plethora of cases that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be invoked by the High Court only when the impugned order is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice.;