[2025:RJ-JP:9123] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16653/2024 Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Pandit Shri Radhey Lal Sharma, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Awadhpuri, Jonsganj, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Poosalal Adopted S/o Shri Kishan Ji, Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs 1/1 Smt Durga Devi, W/o Late Shri Poosalal 1/2 Shri Prabhudayal, S/o Late Shri Poosalal 1/3 Shri Trilokchand, S/o Late Shri Poosalal 1/4 Smt Indra D/o Late Shri Poosalal, All Are R/o Narsinghpura, Jonsganj, Ajmer 1/5 Smt Champa W/o Shri Trilock Chand Ji Mali @ Mohallal Mahavar, D/o Late Shri Poosalal R/o Behind H.m.t, Near House Of Ganesh Gurjar, Jawahar Ki Nadi, Byawar Road, Ajmer 2. Shri Kana, S/o Late Shri Choga 3. Shri Kalu, S/o Late Shri Pukha 4. Shri Govind S/o Late Shri Pukha, Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs 4/1 Smt Beena Devi, W/o Late Shri Govind 4/2 Master Shubam Minor, Son Of Late Shri Govind 4/3 Ms Anjlika, Minor, D/o Late Shri Govind 4/4 Ms Sneha, Minor, D/o Late Shri Govind 4/5 Ms Prathisha Minor D/o Late Shri Govind, 4/2 To 4/5 Through Natural Guridian Mother Smt Beena Devi W/o Late Shri Govind, All Are R/o Village, Banseli, Sub Tehsil, Pushkar, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA [2025:RJ-JP:9123] (2 of 3) [CW-16653/2024] Order 03/03/2025 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer in civil suit No. 48/2016 whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and possession against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which the plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for bringing the factual position of the disputed property on record but the trial Court vide order dated 01.08.2024 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that after passing the interim order dated 25.10.2023 with regard to the disputed property, defendants continued to raise construction thereon, so factual position was required to be brought on record but the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the petition filed by the plaintiff be allowed and the trial Court be directed to appoint the site commissioner, so that the factual position can be brought on record. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff had adduced his evidence and matter is pending for defendants’ evidence. Present suit is for specific performance of the contract. So, no evidence is required for the construction [2025:RJ-JP:9123] (3 of 3) [CW-16653/2024] which was allegedly going on. So, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff clearly mentioned that interim order was passed that till disposal of the suit undivided part of the disputed property as mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint, shall not be transferred or alienated. There was no stay order regarding addition or alteration/raising construction in the disputed property. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/130