Skip to content


Gurdeo Singh Vs. Malla Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 23 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1986WLN(UC)731
AppellantGurdeo Singh
RespondentMalla Singh
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - order 39, rules 1 and 2--order passed after inspecting site and is reasonable--no error of jurisdiction--held, no case for interference is made out.;revision dismissed - .....chand jain, j.1. this revision is directed against the order dt. 10th sept. 1984, passed by the learned district judge, sri ganganagar in misc. appeal no. 33/84, reversing the order dated 20th april, 1984, passed by the learned munsif on an application under order 39, rules 1 and 2, cpc.2. the learned munsif vide order dated april 20, 1984, dismissed the application for the grant of temporary injunction. aggrieved by the said order mala singh plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned distt. judge, sri ganganagar. the learned district judge inspected the site and after that passed impugned order. learned district judge dirceted the defendant not to demolish a kotha which is in khasra no. 69. the learned court also restrained the defendant from not interfering in the compound of.....
Judgment:

Panna Chand Jain, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 10th Sept. 1984, passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Misc. Appeal No. 33/84, reversing the order dated 20th April, 1984, passed by the learned Munsif on an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC.

2. The learned Munsif vide order dated April 20, 1984, dismissed the application for the grant of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said order Mala Singh plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Distt. Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The learned District Judge inspected the site and after that passed impugned order. Learned District Judge dirceted the defendant not to demolish a Kotha which is in khasra No. 69. The learned Court also restrained the defendant from not interfering in the compound of the plaintiff.

3. I have given my the thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the discretionary order passed by the learned Munsif. He submitted that no circumstances have been pointed out by the Appellate Court for interfering in the order passed by the learned Munsif. Controverting his submission, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that the order was passed after inspecting the site inspection the Appellate Court could notice that there was 3/1-2 feet passage, in Kariarsingh's Compound. In my opinion the order passed by the learned District Judge is quite reasonable and no case is made out for any interference in this revision petition. There is no error of jurisdiction.

5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //