[2025:RJ-JP:3996] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18625/2024 M/s Unire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, Having Registered Office At 69/375, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020, Through Its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Rakesh Shah ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kensington Tours Ltd., Office 2 Queen Street East, Suit 500 Toronto, Ontario M5C 3G7, Canada, Through President Ms. Helen Giontsis 2. Ms. Melissa Stankovich, Director, Procurement Operations, Kensington Tours, 2 Queen Street East, Suit 500 Toronto, Ontario M5C 3G7. 3. Mrs. Monika Bahirwani, Sole Proprietor, Setzling, Villa No. 64, Shubh Villa By Shubham Group, Narayan Vihar, Jaipur, Office At 34 Raghu Vihar, Patrakar Colony Road, Sanganer, Jaipur. 4. Ms. Ankita Singhal, B-35, Triveni Nagar, Near Gopalpura Bye Pass, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018, Rajasthan. 5. Ms. Jigyasha Chaturvedi, Abuda Chauraha Ke Paas, Sai Sagah Dukaan, Saini Gaon, Mount Abu, Block No. 3, Abu Sirohi-307501, Rajasthan. 6. Ms. Anjali Tewani, 92/175, Patel Marg, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra,AGC Ms. Lipi Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashvardhan Tolani (respondents No.3 to6) Mr. Vikram Singh for Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 28/01/2025 1. Though the writ petition has been listed in the orders category awaiting service of notices upon respondents No.1 and 2, however, with the consent of counsel for the petitioner and [2025:RJ-JP:3996] (2 of 3) [CW-18625/2024] counsel for the respondents No.3 to 6, writ petition has been heard for admission on merits. 2. By means of instant writ petition, petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan I, Head Quarter, Sanganer, directing the plaintiff to ensure service of respondents No.1 and 2 through Embassy. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for recovery of damages qua respondents No.1 and 2 has been made in the original suit, but in the application for temporary injunction, their prayer is qua respondents No.3 to 6 only and they are not making any prayer in the temporary injunction against respondents No.1 and 2, hence, the trial Court could have heard application for temporary injunction even in absence of service of respondents- non-applicant No.1 and 2 therein. 4. During course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner makes a limited prayer that the order impugned may be confined to the proceedings of original suit. As far as, proceedings in the application for temporary injunction is concerned, petitioner would submit an application seeking deletion of name of respondents No.1 and 2 and in that event, the trial Court may be directed to hear the application for temporary injunction on merits. 5. Considering the limited prayer of counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff is not making any prayer in the application for temporary injunction against respondents No.1 and 2, he is at liberty to move application for deletion of their name in the application for temporary injunction. Since the relief in the temporary injunction is confined to respondents No.3 [2025:RJ-JP:3996] (3 of 3) [CW-18625/2024] to 6, who have already been served, therefore, the trial Court may proceed to consider and decide the application for temporary injunction after hearing the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid liberty, but without interference to the impugned order, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J SOURAV /57