[2025:RJ-JP:47183] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17528/2025 Bharat Bhushan Sharma S/o Late Shri Satyanarayan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Satananda Colony, Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Radha Devi W/o Late Moolchand Sharma, R/o Satananda Colony, Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa (Raj.) 2. Vipin Kumar S/o Late Moolchand Sharma, R/o Satananda Colony, Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa (Raj.) 3. Ashish Sharma S/o Late Moolchand Sharma, R/o Satananda Colony, Mandawar, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa (Raj.) 4. Bhavna Sharma D/o Moolchand Sharma W/o Shri Krishna Kant Sharma, R/o Brahmpuri Colony, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.) 5. Santosh Sharma D/o Moolchand Sharma W/o Arun Kumar Sharma, R/o N.R.I. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parashar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 21/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahwa, District Dausa in Civil Original Appeal No.35/2025, whereby the stay application filed by the appellants/respondents has been allowed and stayed the operation of judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, wherein the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:47183] (2 of 3) [CW-17528/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is seriously aggrieved with the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 and further submits that during the pendency of the first appeal, the operation of the decree ought not to have been stayed. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 may kindly be set aside and the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025 may kindly be restored. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. 4. From the record, it is evident that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner in 2021, and after completion of the trial vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved of which, the defendants have preferred an appeal, and in the appeal, the question of fact and law are to be adjudicated on merits; therefore, the learned Appellate Court, in the interest of justice, has stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025 till the next date of hearing. 6. A bare look to the impugned order reveals that the learned Appellate Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order during pendency of the appeal. Even otherwise, in case during pendency of the appeal, if the operation of the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025 had not been stayed, then the very purpose of filing the appeal would have been frustrated. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court does [2025:RJ-JP:47183] (3 of 3) [CW-17528/2025] not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-23