I. S. ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1. 2. 84 passed by the Additional District Judge No 3. Jaipur city by which the ad interim injunction order issued by the learned Munsif, Jaipur city (East) dated 1. 12. 78 in the suit for permanent injunction, was vacated.
(2.) A suit for issue of permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner in the court of learned Munsif Jaipur city (East) on 4. 2. 76 alongwith an application for issue of temporary injunction. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court confirmed the ad interim injunction on I. 12. 78 and restrained the non petitioner Municipal Council Jaipur from closing the doors opened by the petitioner. The non petitioner filed an appeal against the order of trial court, which was accepted on 1. 2. 84 and the temporary injunction issued by the trial court was vacated. The contention of Shri D. L. Badhdar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for sanction for opening of the doors alongwith the map, which was infect approved by the non petitioner Municipal Council and wrongly sent to the Collector for approval under the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Palaces Act, 1954. According to the learned counsel under section 6 of the Act only when a construction of any public religious building or when any private or public building is converted into a public religious building the permission of the Collector is required to be taken. He has pointed out that it is evident from the letter of the non petitioner dated 9 1 75 addressed to the Collector, Jaipur that the non petitioner had no objection to opening of these doors as is clearly stated in the said letter. It is also stated in the letter that the said opening of the doors was within the bye laws of the Municipal Council. It is submitted that thereafter the Municipal Council gave show cause notices to the petitioner in the months of November and December 1975 threatening to close down the doors, whereupon the present suit was filed It is further contended that as per sub clause (8) of section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the petitioner was entitled to infer that the several communications, no information regarding any refusal of the permission sought was communicated to him. It is further submitted that the opening of the doors does not fall within clause (b) of sub clause (1) of sec. 170 as it is not a material alteration. It is further contended that the trial court had passed a detailed order after considering all documents and affidavits on record and the learned first appellate court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction in interfering with the reasoned order given by the trial court. The contention of Shri Ajeet Bhandari appearing on behalf of the non petitioner is that the opening of the doors fall within r. 3 of the bye laws framed under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and, therefore, it was necessary for the petitioner to have obtained sanction. It is also pointed out that the trial court itself has considered this matter and given a finding that the said opening of the doors falls within the definition of material alteration. It is further contended that no sanction regarding opening of the doors was granted to the petitioner and therefore, he was not entitled to open these doors and equitable relief cannot be granted to the petitioner who has acted against the law. It is contended that an affidavit had been filed stating that a communication had been sent to the petitioner refusing the permission for opening of the doors. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the orders of both the courts below as also the material on record. It is clearly stated by the non petitioner in its letter dated 9. 1. 75 addressed to the Collector that the non petitioner had no objection to grant permission for opening of these doors to the petitioner. It is also stated in the said letter that the opening of the doors was within the bye laws. The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this was a mistake of the non petitioner and these doors do not fall within rule 3 of the bye laws. Learned trial court has considered this aspect of the matter and taken a particular view on this documents and thereafter came to a conclusion that prima facie the case existed in favour of "the petitioner as the non petitioner itself had mentioned in the letter dated 9. 1. 75 that it had no objection in sanctioning the opening of the doors. It thereafter also came to the conclusion that all the three conditions for issue of temporary injunction existed in favour of the petitioner. The learned first appellate court took a different view of this document dated 9. 1. 75 and vacated the injunction granted by the trail court. In my view when the trial court had considered all the documents and gave a reasoned order, it cannot be said that it acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. When the non petitioner itself at one time thinks that it had no objection in granting the said permission and when reply to the temporary injunction was filed it was stated therein that it was of the opinion that it has objection to grant of the permission therefore, this is a serious question which needs proper decision. ' In the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the order of the trial court is restored. It is made clear that both the parties shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. The suit has become quite old. The learned trial court is therefore directed to fix at least one date every month to try the suit as expeditiously as possible.
(3.) NO order as to costs. .;