[2026:RJ-JP:9275] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 164/2026 1. Shankar Singh Son Of Gordhan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. 2. Rajendra Son Of Gordhan Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Village Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. 3. Om Prakash Son Of Gordhan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Public Prosecutor, Bayana. 2. Tehsildar Sahab, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Maneesh Sharma with Mr. Nakul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghav Mishra & Mr. Umesh Choudhary for Mr. V.D. Gathala HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 27/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 21.11.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bayana, District Bharatpur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10/2025, whereby, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by plaintiff-petitioner and upheld the order dated 01.11.2025, passed by Civil Judge, Bayana, District Bharatpur, in [2026:RJ-JP:9275] (2 of 2) [CW-164/2026] C.M. No. 65/2025, wherein the ad-interim order has been declined in the temporary injunction application which is still pending. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the courts below have committed an illegality in failing to pass an order granting interim injunction; therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the courts below have only declined to grant ad interim relief at this stage; however, the main application for temporary injunction is still pending consideration. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court finds that both the courts below have refused to grant ad interim injunction to the petitioner. This Court finds no error or perversity in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. However, it is expected that the learned trial Court shall decide the application for temporary injunction as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 8. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J JUBIN /62