[2025:RJ-JP:43084] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11688/2021 Chhajuram S/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident of Dhani Pandawali, Tan Harsaura, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Prabhudayal S/o Kanhaiyalal, 2. Bahadur S/o Kanhaiyalal, Both Resident of Dhani Pandawali, Tan Harsaura, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (Rajasthan). 3. Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Bansoor District Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 27/10/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Bansoor, District Alwar, in Civil Suit No.46/40/2020, whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in respect of a borewell situated in Khasra No.736 and the petitioner’s right to get 1/3rd water from the electricity connection No.24050679 has been declined. 2. The petitioner assailed the said order by preferring a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.8/2021, and the said appeal was also [2025:RJ-JP:43084] (2 of 4) [CW-11688/2021] rejected by the Additional District Judge, Bansoor, District Alwar vide order dated 09.09.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have erred in rejecting the injunction application and submits that the temporary injunction prayed for, ought to have been granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the agreement (Annexure-2) dated 13.11.2017, as well as the consensus arrived at between the parties in document dated 10.12.2017; it has been categorically agreed between the parties that the petitioner will not claim any right in the present electricity connection as well as the borewell situated in Khasra No.736. He further submits that all the relevant aspects have been duly considered by both the courts below; thus, there exists no perversity in the impugned order to warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Heard the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 6. From a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner was dismissed while considering the fact that the father of the petitioner executed an agreement dated 13.11.2017, and thereafter, again a consensus was arrived at between the parties, under the signatures of the petitioner vide document dated 10.12.2017; whereby the petitioner has clearly agreed not to assert any right in respect of the said electricity connection No.24050679. [2025:RJ-JP:43084] (3 of 4) [CW-11688/2021] 7. Further, during the course of the argument, it has also come on record that the suit is for the final stage, and it is presently pending at the evidence of the defendant. 8. The impugned orders clearly shows that both the courts below have considered the issue of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury against the petitioner; while appreciating the agreement dated 13.11.2017, as well as the consensus reached between the parties in the document dated 10.12.2017; thus, it cannot be said that both the Courts below have acted capriciously, arbitrarily, perversely or in ignorance of the settled law on grant of temporary injunctions. 9. Since: (i) both the courts below have concurrently declined to grant equitable relief to the petitioner by way of a temporary injunction, while considering the agreement dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure-2) and the consensus arrived at between the parties in document dated 10.12.2017 which clearly reflects that the petitioner conceded not to assert any right in respect of the said electricity connection No.24050679, both the courts below have passed the impugned orders in accordance with the settled law on grant of temporary injunctions; this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders dated 26.07.2021 and 09.09.2021, and finds no jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity in the impugned orders. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. However, it is made clear that the learned Trial Court is free to decide the main suit independently without being influenced by [2025:RJ-JP:43084] (4 of 4) [CW-11688/2021] the observations made by this Court or the findings arrived at in the impugned orders dated 26.07.2021 and 09.09.2021. 12. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /64