- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 31st May, 2011 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Neemkathana, District Sikar dismissed the application of temporary injunction as also the order dated 20th August, 2011 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Neemkathana, District Sikar dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the lower court's said order dated 31st May, 2011.
(2.) The petitioners-plaintiffs are found to have filed a suit against the respondents-defendants for permanent injunction together with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) after hearing both the parties, dismissed the temporary injunction application vide order dated 31st May, 2011. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners-plaintiffs preferred an appeal which also stood dismissed. Hence, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that Jagirdar Mangej Singh and Govind Singh of Village Bhoodoli gave the land in question to the ancestors of the petitioners for rehabilitation. The ancestors were four brothers namely Ramsahai, Jai Narain, Shyonarayan, and Ram Lal. The entry of this land was made by Banshi Mahajan in Bahi. All the four brothers had an oral partition of the land and 1/4 of the total land fell to the share of the petitioners. Whereupon they had constructed a house and part thereof was lying vacant. The respondents, when endeavoured to encroach upon the said land and dispossess the petitioners, they filed the suit for permanent injunction together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The learned trial court sans entering into these niceties of the case, merely inferred that the prima facie case was not made out in petitioners' favour and dismissed the application. The Appellate Court also did not assign any cogent reason and dismissed the appeal. The fact is that the respondents are, in no way, concerned with the land in question and they have been vehemently endeavouring to dispossess the petitioners and encroach upon the land. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be allowed to encroach upon the said land. Hence, the impugned orders rendered by both the courts below deserve to be set aside.;