HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 372/2022 1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, (RIICO) through its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 2. Senior Deputy General Manager, RIICO Limited, Unit- Jaipur (South), Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur. ----Appellants/Defendants Versus M/s Divya Moti Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 and having its registered Office at Shop No. 13-21, Fifth Floor, Sunny Mart, Aatish Market, Mansarovar through its Director and Authorized Signatory Lalit Kumar Naredi S/o Durga Prasad Naredi, R/o C-248, Vaishali Nagar, Gokul Path, Jaipur. ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr.Ashok Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Priya Khushlani For Respondent(s) : Mr.Akash Gupta for Mr.Behari Lal Agarwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/01/2026 1. By way of filing the instant misc. appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer whereby a direction has been issued to the defendants- appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”) to maintain status quo on the record and site of the subject land till final disposal of the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that plaintiff- respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) has (2 of 5) [CMA-372/2022] submitted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants before the Court of Additional District Judge No.10 Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in the year 2015. Counsel submits that a show cause notice was issued by the defendants against the plaintiff on 11.08.2014 seeking explanation as to why the lease issued in favour of the plaintiff should not be cancelled and under these circumstances, the aforementioned suit was submitted by the plaintiff before the Trial court along-with a temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, but no interim order was passed in favour of the plaintiff and the suit is pending since 2015. Thereafter, the lease of the plaintiff was cancelled by the defendants on 03.11.2021 and subsequently, the suit was sought to be amended by the plaintiff by way of filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which was allowed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.12.2021. 3. Counsel submits that while allowing the amendment application submitted by the plaintiff, the instant impugned order has been passed directing the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to the record and site of the subject land. Counsel submits that there was no reason or occasion available with the Trial Court to pass such interim order, as no interim order was ever passed by the Trial Court or previously existing in favour of the plaintiff, between the period 2015 and 2021. Counsel further submits that during pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, the suit was transferred to the Commercial Court, where evidence of both the sides was recorded and even the final arguments were heard. Counsel submits that subsequently the (3 of 5) [CMA-372/2022] Presiding Officer, who heard the arguments was transferred, hence, the suit could not be decided at the relevant time and now, the suit is posted for final arguments once again. 4. Lastly, he argued that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2022, after taking note of the facts, as narrated above, passed an interim order by which the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 has been stayed. Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances, the order dated 25.02.2022 be made absolute to last till final disposal of the suit and a direction be issued to the Trial Court to decide the pending suit expeditiously. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants and submitted that initially a show cause notice for cancellation of lease was issued by the defendants to the plaintiff and thereafter, the instant suit for permanent injunction was submitted, but during pendency of the suit, the lease itself was cancelled and an application was submitted for amendment of the suit with the prayer seeking directions to the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff from the subject land, hence, under these circumstances, the Trial Court has not committed an error in passing the order impugned, which warrants any interference of this Court and the misc. appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that assailing the show cause notice, issued by the defendants against the plaintiff for cancellation of his lease, a suit was filed by the plaintiff before the (4 of 5) [CMA-372/2022] Trial Court in the year 2015 along-with a temporary injunction application. However, no injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff till 2021 and in the meantime, the lease of the plaintiff was cancelled by the defendants, hence, under these circumstances, the suit was sought to be amended by the plaintiff, by way of filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in which the Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2021. 8. It is worthy to note here that while allowing the aforesaid application submitted by the plaintiff vide order dated 06.12.2021 the defendants were directed to maintain status quo on the record and site of the subject land till final disposal of the suit. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, there was no reason or occasion available with the Trial Court to pass the interim order at such belated stage and more particularly, when the evidence of both the sides have been recorded and final arguments have already been heard by the erstwhile Presiding Officer posted in the Commercial Court. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case and without entering into the merits of the order permitting amendment, passed by the Trial Court on 06.12.2021, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant misc. appeal by confirming the interim order dated 25.02.2022, passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 has been stayed, to last till final disposal of the suit. Looking to the fact that the suit is lying pending for last more than a decade and looking to the fact that evidence of both the sides has already been recorded and final arguments were heard by the erstwhile Presiding Officer, it is (5 of 5) [CMA-372/2022] expected from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the suit expeditiously as early as possible. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the instant misc. appeal stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 12. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the Trial Court would decide the suit expeditiously on its merits, on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides, without being influenced by any of the observations, if any, made by this Court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/7