SHERJANG KHAN S/O SAID MOHAMMAD KHAN v. IQBAL MOHAMMAD S/O FAIZ MOHAMMAD KHAN
CW/2754/2026 · 2026-02-23
Bipin Gupta
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3840 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3840 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:8342] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2754/2026 Sherjang Khan S/o Said Mohammad Khan, Aged About 82 Years, R/o A-30, Bhagat Vatika, Opposite Chambal Power House, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner/Appellant/Defendant Versus
1. Iqbal Mohammad S/o Faiz Mohammad Khan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Subhash Bazaar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan.
2. Kesar Mohammad S/o Faiz Mohammad, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Subhash Bazaar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan.
3. Zebgul Khan S/o Faiz Mohammad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Subhash Bazaar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan.
4. Nazgul Khan S/o Faiz Mohammad, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Subhash Bazaar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan.
5. Mohammad Sameen Khan S/o Faiz Mohammad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Subhash Bazaar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan.
6. Amir Gul Khan S/o Faiz Mohammad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Subhash Bazaar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan.
7. Farzana Aafridi D/o Faiz Mohammad, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Subhash Bazaar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan.
8. Durshana Aafridi D/o Faiz Mohammad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Subhash Bazaar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Non-Petitioners/Respondents/Plaintiffs For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment / Order 23/02/2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction
[2026:RJ-JP:8342] (2 of 2) [CW-2754/2026] was dismissed on merits vide order dated 19.07.2017. Thereafter, in the First Appeal, a stay order has been passed and learned First Appellate Court has restrained the present petitioner from alienating the property in dispute. Thus, the valuable rights of the petitioner are being prejudiced, due to the pendency of First Appeal which is pending since 2017.
2. Heard.
3. This Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned First Appellate Court to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.
4. With the above observations the writ petition stands
disposed of.
5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J KRATIKA /19