SANTOSH KUMAR AND OTHERS v. DR SHYAM LAL AND OTHERS
CMA/2799/2012 · 2025-09-20
Sanjeet Purohit
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4291 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4291 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:38822] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2799/2012
1. Santosh Kumar son of Shri Parmeshwar Lal age about 42 years, resident of ward No.29 Indra Colony, Devipura Road, Sikar.
2. Sajaddin son of Munir Khan age about 45 years resident of ward No.29 Indra Colony, Devipura Road, Sikar.
3. Salimuddin Tagala @ Munna son of Suleman age about 50 years resident of ward No.29 Indra Colony, Devipura Road, Sikar.
4. Zuber son of Rafiq Tagala, age about 20 years resident of ward No.29 Indra Colony, Devipura Road, Sikar. ----Appellants Versus
1. Dr Shyam Lal Agrawal son of Shri Chouthmal Agrawal resident of Phagalwa presently residing at house No.13, Indra Colony, Devipura Kothi, Sikar.
2. Smt. Manju Agrawal wife of Dr. Shyam Lal Agrawal age about 44 years, resident of Phagalwa presently residing at house No.13, Indra Colony, Devipura Kothi, Sikar.
3. Nagar Parishad Sikar through Its Administrator/Commissioner.
4. Kayyum son of Anwar Khan age about 40 years, resident of ward No.29 Indra Colony, Devipura Road, Sikar. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 20/09/2025
1. Both the counsels are ad idem and submit that the present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned trial Court in Temporary Injunction Application No.96/2012, whereby the trial Court
[2025:RJ-JP:38822] (2 of 2) [CMA-2799/2012] dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
2. The counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties submit that the original suit itself has been decided and the present appeal is rendered infructuous, therefore, the same may be dismissed as such.
3. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
4. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J AVINASH GULERIA /25