- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16/02/2013 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No.1/2013, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order dated 24/01/2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sawai Madhopur in Civil Misc. Application No.06/2013, whereby the Trial Court had dismissed the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.
(2.) AT the outset, the learned counsel Mr. N.C. Sharma for the respondent has submitted that the construction of bridge, for which the injunction was sought by the petitioner/plaintiffs, has already been completed and therefore the petition has become infructuous.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. N.C. Sharma for the petitioners has submitted that though the construction of bridge has been completed, the petition cannot be said to have become infructuous. According to him, the said construction was made by the respondents on the National Highway, opposite to the houses of the petitioners leaving very small passage, and therefore the petitioners had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction for restraining the respondents/defendants from carrying out construction of bridge in question. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, against which the petitioner had preferred the appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court vide the impugned order. There being concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said orders passed by the Courts below. Even otherwise, as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the construction of bridge has already been completed, and therefore also the question of entertaining the present writ petition would not arise, hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioners have also prayed for the mandatory injunction in the main suit, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit.;