HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1766/2017 Beauty Kumari D/o Shri Rishidev Singh, R/o 4, Ramdev Nagar, Harmara, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Mahendra Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Banshi Lal Gurjar, R/o Chacha Nehru Nagar, Kotputali, Jaipur. 2. Shankar Mali @ Kalu Mali S/o Unknown, R/o Plot No. 569, Ramnath Nagar, Todi Harmara, Jaipur and Other Address- Plot No. 5, Ramdev Nagar, Harmara, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1767/2017 1. Rishidev Singh S/o Namalum, R/o Plot No. 4, Ramdev Nagar, Harmada, District Jaipur. 2. Beauty Kumar D/o Rishidev Singh, R/o Plot No. 4, Ramdev Nagar, Harmada, District Jaipur. 3. Rajesh Singh S/o Baleshwar Singh, R/o Plot No. 4, Ramdev Nagar, Harmada, District Jaipur. 4. Sangeeta D/o Baleshwar Singh, R/o Plot No. 4, Ramdev Nagar, Harmada, District Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Mahendra Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Banshi Lal Gurjar, R/o Plot No. 4, Ramdev Nagar, Harmada, District Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : None Present JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/01/2026 (2 of 3) [CMA-1766/2017] 1. In both the Civil Misc. Appeals, a common order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 13, Jaipur Metropolitan is under challenge whereby the application submitted by the plaintiff-appellant (for short, ‘the plaintiff’) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected. 2. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for possession and injunction was filed by the plaintiff against the respondents way back in the year 2012, alleging therein that she is the owner of the subject land and has raised construction over it but the respondents were bent upon to start construction on the same. Under these circumstances, she approached the trial court by way of filing the above suit along with a temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 3. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial Judge vide impugned order dated 14.02.2017 rejected the application as no prima facie case was found in favour of the plaintiff. 4. By passing the order impugned, certain observations have been made. It appears that under these circumstances, both the parties have approached this Court by way of filing these two separate appeals. 5. Perusal of the same indicates that no prima facie case was found, hence the application seeking temporary injunction, against the defendants till final disposal of the suit, was rejected. 6. This Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below, which warrants any interference of this Court. Accordingly, both the Civil Misc. Appeals are found to be devoid of merits and the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. (3 of 3) [CMA-1766/2017] 7. Looking to the fact that since the suit filed by the plaintiff is lying pending for its adjudication before the Court below for last more than fourteen years, it is expected from the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending suit, if any, expeditiously, as early as possible on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides, after affording due opportunity of hearing and appreciating evidence led by both the sides. 8. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made by the trial Court, while deciding the application submitted by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and by this Court, while deciding these appeals, shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion by both the Courts on the merits of the case. The trial Court is expected to decide the pending suit strictly on its merit, based on the evidence led by both the sides. 9. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/5-6