- (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by two orders dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate No.2, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, and the order dated 5.3.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. By the former order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the petitioners. By the latter order, the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 29.10.2013 and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that despite the fact that petitioners had submitted a copy of the sale-deed dated 22.10.1998, despite the fact that they were in possession of the property in dispute, as is apparent from the Commissioner's report, still the learned Magistrate has dismissed their application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has failed to assign any valid reason for dismissing the said application. Hence, the order dated 29.10.2013 deserves to be interfered with. Moreover, the learned Judge has not given any valid reason for dismissing the appeal, and for upholding the order dated 29.10.2013. Therefore, the order dated 5.3.2014 also deserves to be set aside.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders.;