[2025:RJ-JP:27112] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3892/2015 Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Kunjbihari, R/o Juna Bazar, Near Char Bhuja Mandir, Neemach (M.P.) ----Applicant/Appellant Versus Mahesh S/o Shri Kunjbihari, R/o Juna Bazar, Near Char Bhuja Mandir, Neemach (M.P.), presently residing at Kherda, near I.O.C. Rest House, Kherda, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Non-applicant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Vijay Singh for Mr. Anil Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avi Sharma for Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 21/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No.9/2011, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for willful disobedience was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below granted interim injunction order on 27.03.2008 and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to property in question. He further submits that after the said injunction order, the respondent constructed 6-7 feet wall behind the house of non-applicant Brijesh Kumar and also raised other [2025:RJ-JP:27112] (2 of 3) [CMA-3892/2015] constructions, therefore, the respondent be punished for willful violation of injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He further submits that learned Court below has erred in not holding the respondent guilty of willful disobedience of the injunction order whereas from the facts of the case, it is evident that the respondent has raised construction after passing of the injunction order dated 27.03.2008, therefore, he prays that the respondent may be punished for willful disobedience of the injunction order. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has not violated any interim order whatever was construction raised the same was prior to passing of the injunction order dated 27.03.2008. He further submits that learned Court below has after due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case rightly rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and there is no infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, the present appeal filed by appellant may kindly be dismissed. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the record of the case, it is reflected that the learned Trial Court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the suit property and in furtherance thereof one Dhara Singh Rajora, Advocate, inspected the suit property on 19.03.2008 but said Commissioner submitted his report on 27.03.2008, in such a situation, if any construction is raised prior to issuance of Injunction Order dated [2025:RJ-JP:27112] (3 of 3) [CMA-3892/2015] 27.03.2008, it cannot be said that alleged construction has been done in violation of the interim order. 6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent has submitted that Brijesh has constructed the wall and the same was constructed prior to issuance of Injunction Order. Further, from perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant has not produced any conclusive evidence that on which date the alleged wall constructed, thus, it cannot be safely concluded that the respondent Mahesh has constructed the disputed wall in willful disobedience of the Injunction Order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the act of the respondent in any manner violates the injunction order dated 27.03.2008, accordingly, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit and the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. All the pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-65