Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner -plaintiff challenging the order dated 21.5.12 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 19/11, whereby the appellate court has allowed the appeal of the respondent -defendant and set aside the order dated 4.7.11 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') allowing the application of the petitioner being No. 84/11 for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The Learned Counsel Mr. Dilip Sharma for the petitioner taking the court to the provisions contained in Section 91A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act')submitted that as per the said provision, the petitioner was required to serve with the show cause notice by the respondents, before taking the decision to demolish the disputed construction in question, however, the respondents, without giving any notice, have straightway directed the petitioner to remove the construction within three days of the notice dated 24.6.11 (Annex.7). According to him, the petitioner plaintiff , therefore, was required to approach the trial court and the trial court protected his possession of the disputed premises by passing the order dated 4.7.11, which has been wrongly set aside by the appellate court.
(2.) HOWEVER , the Learned Counsel Mr. Amit Kuri for the respondent -trust has submitted that the petitioner did not make any representation before the respondent -trust and, therefore, the decision was taken to demolish the disputed construction in view of Section 91A of the said Act. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner -plaintiff was not served with any show -cause notice as contemplated under the proviso to Section 91A of the said Act by the respondent -trust, and straight way the petitioner was called upon to remove the disputed construction within three days of the notice dated 24.6.11. Having regard to the submissions made by the Learned Counsels for the parties and to the orders passed by the courts below it appears that the trial court had rightly considered the factual and legal aspect involved in the matter and had restrained the respondent -defendant trust, from dispossessing the plaintiff -respondent without following the due process of law. The appellate court has set aside the said order, which order does not appear to be in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 91A of the said Act. The said order of the appellant court being illegal, the same deserves to be set aside and the order passed by the trial court deserves to be restored. In that view of the matter the order dated 21st May, 2012 passed by the appellate court is set aside and the order dated 4.7.11 passed by the trial court is restored. The petition stands allowed accordingly. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit.;