ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioners-defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') are aggrieved of the order dated 27-9-2016 passed by the Additional District Judge Kotputli District Jaipur.
(2.) Counsel for the defendants submits that even while the trial court dismissed the respondents-plaintiffs' (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC vide order dated 6-9-2016, and the appellate court in appeal vide order dated 27-9-2016, affirmed it, in the operation the appellate court inexplicably ordered that status quo yet be maintained. Therefore the order passed by the appellate court is plainly contradictory and ex facie perverse. It has been submitted that the defendants are registered owner of the suit land and in possession and hence in any event no injunction could be issued against them at the instance of a third party. It has also been submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the suit only for permanent injunction without any prayer for declaration of ownership.
(3.) Mr. Yogesh Pujari, counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for a parcel of the land, which is in their possession. Heard. Considered.;