[2025:RJ-JP:20330] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3048/2016 1. Gopal s/o Late Shri Kalyan, aged about 68 years, r/o Modi Ki Chowki, Civil Lines, Tonk (Raj.) 2. Babu s/o Late Shri Kalyan, aged about 58 years, r/o Modi ki Chowki, Civil Lines, Tonk (Raj.) ----Plaintiffs/Appellants Versus 1. Smt Mangi Devi w/o Ramdev, aged about 55 years r/o Opp. Shivalaya Temple, Modi ki Chowki, Tonk (Raj.) 2. Nagar Parishad, Tonk through Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) 3. Sub-Registrar, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 14/05/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Order 43 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC assailing the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tonk in Civil Case No.39/2015 titled as "Gopal & Anr. Vs. Mangi Devi & Ors.", whereby the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellants has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed by the appellants on 24.06.2013. Along with the suit, the appellants also filed a temporary injunction application against the respondent- [2025:RJ-JP:20330] (2 of 4) [CMA-3048/2016] defendant, stating that the respondent may be restrained to raise construction, and also to maintain the status quo. 3. The respondent No.1 contested the temporary injunction application by filing a reply and contended that the answering respondent had purchased the suit land and is in possession of the suit property, therefore, there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. 4. The respondent No.2-Nagar Parishad, Tonk, also filed a reply to temporary injunction application, asserting that the appellants are not in possession of the property. In the additional plea, respondent No.2-Nagar Parishad, Tonk, stated that the Patta dated 24.06.2013 was obtained by concealing the material facts and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the temporary injunction application. 5. After hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the learned Court below observed that since the sale deed has been registered and it has been found that the appellants are not in possession of the property, therefore, the learned Court below while deciding the temporary injunction application, dismissed the same. At the same time directed that an undertaking may be taken from the respondent, that in case, the suit filed by the appellants is decreed, the respondent No.1 will demolish the construction so raised during the pendency of the suit at his own cost, thus, this present appeal has been filed. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned order suffers from perversity because initially the learned Court below has granted an interim order but later on [2025:RJ-JP:20330] (3 of 4) [CMA-3048/2016] it was not extended and construction was allowed to proceed on the basis of the undertaking. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 8. Since the main suit has been filed seeking cancellation of the registered deed dated 24.06.2013, and there is a finding recorded in the impugned order that the appellants are not in possessions while respondent No.1 is in possession of the property as owner based on the alleged sale deed, dated 24.06.2013 the order passed by the learned Court below dismissing the temporary injunction application, subject to the filing of an undertaking by the respondent, cannot be considered as arbitrary or perverse, rather the same appears to be a just order. 9. That a bare perusal of the impugned order further reveals that the learned court below has adopted a reasonably fair and balanced approach to decide the temporary injunction application and impugned order cannot be said to be contrary to record or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court under its appellate jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed being devoid of merits. 11. However, it is made clear that any observation made in the impugned order shall not influence the Court while deciding the suit on its merits. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [2025:RJ-JP:20330] (4 of 4) [CMA-3048/2016] 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/99