Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 2.3.12 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 1, Pali, whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents -plaintiffs against the order dated 3.11.08 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Jaitaran in Civil Misc. Case No. 57/01, rejecting the application preferred by the respondents -plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction, has been partly allowed and the injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs in terms that the parties shall maintain the status quo in respect of the record of the disputed property till the disposal of the suit.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioners filed a revenue suit for partition and injunction in the court of Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Jaitaran inter alia against the father of the respondents -defendants. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The partition was effected by meets and bounds and the parties were put into actual physical possession at the site. Against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.09 passed by the SDO, the respondent No. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Pali, which stood rejected vide order dated 31.10.01 passed in Appeal No. 90/01. The judgment passed by the RAA was not further appealed against and thus, the same has attained finality. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 to 3 preferred an application under Section 12 read with Order IX Rule 9 and order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.1.06. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal before RAA, Pali being No. 16/06, which was also dismissed on 23.3.12.
(3.) NOW , the respondents -defendants have preferred a suit in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Jaitaran for declaring the compromise decree dated 17.9.01 as null and void. The petitioner also preferred an application seeking temporary injunction which stood dismissed by the trial court observing that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case in their favour. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal, which has been partly allowed by the appellate court and the injunction has been granted in favour of the respondents -plaintiffs in the terms indicated above. Hence, this petition.;