PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) The order dated 01.02.2018 (Annex.8) and 05.02.2018 (Annex.10) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.32/2017 may kindly be set aside. (ii) In the alternative it is also prayed that the suit itself unnecessarily being filed by the plaintiff may kindly be rejected with costs. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the plaintiff/respondents no.1 and 2 filed a civil suit before the court of learned Civil Judge, Nagaur seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant. The suit was accompanied by an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The bone of contention is that the defendant-petitioner is making construction of soak pit, which is stated to be an open land of Panchayat, and is in front of the house of plaintiff-respondents. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that temporary injunction was granted by the trial court vide order dated 20.9.2017 to the extent of that soak pit construction was permitted, however, the learned appellate court reversed the same by passing order dated 01.2.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that soak pit was constructed in the Panchayat's land with permission of Panchayat.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions on the ground that soak pit is in front of his house and it is directly causing problem/nuisance to the respondents.;