- (1.) THE matter has come up for consideration on the application filed by the respondents seeking vacation of the interim stay order dated 27.9.2011 passed by this court, while issuing notice to the respondents in the present appeal, however,the appeal having not been admitted, the same has been considered on merits.
(2.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC challenging the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.4,Kota (hereinafter referred as the "trial court") in Civil Misc. Application No. 90 of 2008, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the appellant-plaintiff seeking temporary injunction sought against the respondents-defendants. It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma for the appellant that the appellant had agreed to purchase the land in question from one Parvati Bai who was earlier the Khatedar in respect of the suit land, and due to inadvertence, the land was recorded as Siwai Chak. According to Mr. Sharma, the said Parvati Bai had already filed the proceedings seeking declaration of her Khatedari rights and the said proceedings were decided in her favour. However, compliance of the said order had remained to be made. He also submitted that thereafter the said Parvati Bai had executed an agreement to sell the said land in the year 1981 and also executed a will dated 20.2.1989 in favour of the appellant. Since the said Parvati Bail expired on 18.11.89, the name of Parvati Bai could not be entered in the revenue record. According to Mr. Sharma, in the year 1991, a notice came to be published in the daily newspaper on the basis of the order dated 24.4.1991 passed by the Secretary UIt, and the same was challenged by the present appellant before the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No.2548 of 1991. The said writ petition having been dismissed, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench which was permitted to be withdrawn by the Division Bench vide the order dated 16.5.2007, permitting the appellant to file the civil suit before the civil court. He further submitted that the said suit being pending, the right of the appellant in respect of the land in question deserves to be protected. Taking the court to the various documents and the impugned order passed by the trial court, Mr. Sharma submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly dismissed the application of appellant-plaintiff.
(3.) HOWEVER, learned counsel Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial court and submitted that the appellant has no right, title or interest in land in question. He also submitted that the respondents-defendants have filed an FIR against appellant for forging the orders of revenue authorities. In short, he has urged to dismiss the present appeal.;