[2025:RJ-JP:4092] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5290/2021 1. Krishan Kumar Bandra Son Of Late Gopal Lal Bandra, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Sarkari Girls School Ke Paas, Opposite Gopal Mandir, Kunhadi, Kota (Raj.) 2. Bhagwati Devi Wife Of Late Gopal Lal Bandra, Resident Of Sarkari Girls School Ke Paas, Opposite Gopal Mandir, Kunhadi, Kota (Raj.) 3. Radharaman Bandra Son Of Late Gopal Lal Bandra, Resident Of Sarkari Girls School Ke Paas, Opposite Gopal Mandir, Kunhadi, Kota (Raj.) 4. Bhajan Lal Bandra Son Of Late Gopal Lal Bandra, Resident Of Sarkari Girls School Ke Paas, Opposite Gopal Mandir, Kunhadi, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus 1. Krishan Kumar Maliwal Son Of Late Panna Lal Maliwal, Resident Of Sarkari Girls School Ke Paas, Opposite Gopal Mandir, Kunhadi, Kota (Raj.) ..........Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Through Nagar Nigam Kota, Dashhara Maidan, Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents-Performa For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma through V.C. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/01/2025 1. Instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"), challenging the order dated 22.03.2021 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.38/2020 by the Additional District Judge No.03, Kota, allowing the appeal and [2025:RJ-JP:4092] (2 of 3) [CW-5290/2021] after setting aside the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (North), Kota, injunction order has been passed against the defendants to not raise construction at the site. 2. Perusal of the order impugned dated 22.03.2021 passed by the appellate Court, goes to show that the appellate Court considered the report of Commissioner along with other documents and observed that the defendants are raising construction and narrowed the way in question. Further, the appellate Court observed through perusal of the photographs that the construction so raised by the defendants is without leaving the required set back. Thus, the appellate Court having considered the material on record, observed that the trial Court committed perversity in rejecting the application for Temporary Injunction without appreciating the documents/ material available on record and granted indulgence in the matter and passed the injunction order. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment delivered in case of Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India [1990 (Supp) SCC 727], while discussing the scope and jurisdiction of the appellate court to interfere against the order of grant or refusal of application for temporary injunction, which is discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, observed and held as under:- "14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or [2025:RJ-JP:4092] (3 of 3) [CW-5290/2021] perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion." 4. The impugned order, on the touchstone of settled parameters of law, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor warrants any interference by this Court in exercising of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In that view, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. 6. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/72