[2025:RJ-JP:1178] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19375/2024 Nand Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Lalana Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur, Ra- jasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation, Through Chairman And Managing Director, Jaipur, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, Riico, Ajmer. 3. Regional Manager Riico, Old Industrial Area, Madanganj- Kishangarh. 4. Assistant Regional Manager Riico, Old Industrial Area, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Jai Lodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 08/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Kishangargh Ajmer in civil misc. Application No. 83/2024 titled as “Nand Singh Vs. RIICO and Ors.” whereby the application filed by the plaintiff for main- taining status quo during the pendency of the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defen- [2025:RJ-JP:1178] (2 of 3) [CW-19375/2024] dants’) for permanent injunction in which Additional Civil Judge vide judgment dated 25.10.2024 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff furthers submits that be- ing aggrieved with the judgment dated 25.10.2024 plaintiff pre- ferred an appeal and the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarh, Ajmer (for short ‘the appellate Court’) vide or- der dated 10.12.2024 dismissed the temporary injunction applica- tion filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plain- tiff had temporary injunction in his favour till disposal of the civil suit but the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Disputed land does not belong to RIICO. It is in the name of Municipal Council, Kishangarh. Municipal Council, Kis- hangarh issued the patta of the land in question. Plaintiff also wanted to get the patta from the Municipal Council, Kishangarh and proceeding is pending there. So, the appellate court had to is- sue direction to maintain status quo regarding disputed property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for im- pleading Municipal Council, Kishangarh as a party respondent, but on account of objection raised by the defendants, the trial Court arbitrarily dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the appellate Court be set aside and the parties be directed to maintain status quo over the disputed property. Learned Sr. Counsel for the defendants has opposed the ar- guments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that the plaintiff is an encroacher on the land in question. [2025:RJ-JP:1178] (3 of 3) [CW-19375/2024] Disputed land belongs to the defendants. Application filed by plaintiff for impleading the Municipal Council, Kishangarh as a party respondent, has been dismissed by the trial Court. Plaintiff had not challenged the said order by way of writ petition. Appel- late Court rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned orders. It is an admitted position that the suit was filed by the plain- tiff and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on merits. Plaintiff had no right to say as to whether disputed land belongs to Municipal Council, Kishangarh or RIICO. Plaintiff had not submit- ted any title document with regard to disputed land. Disputed land was wrongly entered in the name of Municipal Council, Kishangarh and letters have been written by District Collector for correction in the record. So, in my considered opinion, appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the temporary injunction appli- cation filed by the plaintiff. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accord- ingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/153