- (1.) BY the instant appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugend order dated 19th August, 2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Srikaranpur, District Ganganagar, whereby the learned court below has declined the prayer of the appellants for temporary injunction and rejected the said application.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the land, which was auctioned by the first respondent- Municipality, is a part of the road and as such the construction carried out by the auction-purchaser is, prima facie, contrary to map prepared by the Deputy Town Planner West, Bikaner. Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that while considering the prayer of the appellants for temporary injunction, the learned court below has not examined the matter in the proper perspective, and therefore, the findings recorded on all the issues for grant of temporary injunction are absolutely perverse.
(3.) PER contra, Dr. Rakesh Sinha, learned counsel for the Municipality, submits that the width of the road is 30 feet only and in the entire Gajsinghpur town, there is no road having width of 100 feet or more. Dr. Sinha further submits that the land in question was auctioned strictly in accordance with law after following the due procedure and seeking permission from the District Collector Sriganganagar and, therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order. Dr. Sinha while supporting the verdict of the learned Court below has submitted that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was throughly examined by the learned trial Court and thereafter it has recorded a clear and unequivocal finding that none of three ingredients are available to the appellants for grant of temporary injunction, which cannot be faulted. According to the learned counsel granting relief of temporary injunction is within the discretion of the trial Court and once such discretion is exercised judiciously, the same is not liable to be interfered with.;