AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.05.2019, passed by District Judge, Churu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') whereby the Appellate Court has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by learned Sr. Civil Judge, Churu (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').
The facts in brief appertain to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners, alongwith an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The application for grant of temporary injunction came to be allowed by the trial Court, vide its order dated 22.03.2018. The trial Court relied upon an agreement and other material available on record and restrained the defendants-petitioners herein from encroaching or raising any sort of construction over the land ad measuring 4 X 6 ft., which was alleged to be a right of way.
Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 22.03.2018, the present petitioners preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 29.05.2019.
The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit on 16.08.2019, alongwith photo-stat copies of agreements dated 7.11.1992 and dated 13.04.1993, which have been relied upon by the Courts below.
Mr. Saharan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Courts below have erred in passing the impugned orders on the basis of the agreements dated 7.11.1992 and 13.04.1993, completely ignoring the fact that these agreements were neither executed by the petitioners nor did they concern them, and the petitioners are alien to such agreements.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, these documents ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial Court and the order impugned based upon such agreements clearly suffers from manifest error of law.
Upon perusal of the memo of appeal and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants-petitioners before the Courts below, this Court does not find even a whisper that these documents do not involve them and they cannot be relied.
Since the petitioners have never raised any question about applicability of these agreements on them before the Courts below, this Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot permit the petitioners to raise such plea.
Apart from the above, the orders impugned have been based upon proper appreciation of material and evidence available on record and they being discretionary in nature, do not call for any interference.
The writ petition, therefore, fails.
The stay application is also dismissed.