[2026:RJ-JP:18630] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7478/2026 Shri Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan, Through Secretary/mantri Suresh Kumar Jain, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 402, Mahaveer Nagar-1, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Shashi Mathur Wife Of Late N.c. Mathur, Aged About 78 Years, Plot No.509, Mahaveer Nagar-1, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Indra Circle, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RK Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. NK Maloo, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nitin Jain Mr.Kamal Paraswal Mr. Sarvesh Jain Mr. Vaibhav Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Sharma Mr. Ashish Guwalani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 1 Arguments concluded on 27/04/2026 2 Judgment Reserved on 27/04/2026 3 Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced Full Judgment 4 Pronounced on 06/05/2026 1. That the present writ petition has been instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Civil [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (2 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, in Temporary Injunction Application Case No. 127/2025, whereby the second temporary injunction application moved by the petitioner came to be allowed, has been dismissed. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has repeatedly suppressed the material and chequered history of litigation pertaining to the subject matter and has approached the learned civil courts with unclean hands, actuated by ulterior motives. It was further contended that the petitioner is a duly registered society under the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, possessing a valid registration certificate as well as a governing constitution. For the sake of brevity, the relevant extract from the constitution of the petitioner-sansthan is reproduced hereinbelow: “1- Jh egkohj lk/kuk laLFkku egkohj uxj ds v/khuLFk tSu /keZ”kkyk] Lok/;k; “kkyk] okpuky;] ljLorh ¼fo|k½ Hkou] lkeqnkf;d Hkou] vkS’k/kky;] fpfdRlky;] mnklhu vkJe] R;kxho`fr;ksa ds Bgjus dk LFkku] ftuky; vkfn dk fuekZ.k djkuk o laLFkkvksa dks mudh ijEijkxr o vkEuk; ds vuqlkj leqfpr O;oLFkk o budh rFkk muls lacaf/kr py o vpy laifRr dh lqj{kk o lqO;oLFkk djukA 2- /kkfeZd] mRlo] vuq’Bku lekjksg] laxks’Bh dk vk;kstu o izaca/k djukA 3- ftuok.kh dk izpkj izlkj izdk”ku o vuqla/kku djuk o djokuk] Nk=o`fRr;kW rFkk vkfFkZd lgk;rk nsukA 4- leku mnns’; okyh vU; laLFkkvksa ds lnL; cuuk] mudks lnL; cukuk mudks lg;ksx nsukA 5- Nk=ks] fo/kokvksa] vleFkksZ ,oa o`+)ks dks vkfFkZd lgk;rk nsuk o lkekftd dqjhfr;ksa dk fuokj.k djukA 6- /;ku dsUnz LFkkfir djukA 7- uSfrd f”k{kk ,oa dEI;wVj Kku dh tkudkjh nsukA” 3. It was submitted that the genesis of the present matter lies in the order dated 03.02.2001, whereby the State Government accorded sanction for allotment of land admeasuring 726 square yards in favour of the petitioner and 1000 square [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (3 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] yards in favour of another society, namely Hadoti Samaj, Jaipur, out of the facility area adjacent to Plot Nos. 508 and 509, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Pursuant thereto, the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “JDA”), after approval by the Building Plan Committee (hereinafter referred to as “BPC”), allotted land admeasuring 591 square meters to the petitioner, followed by execution and registration of the lease deed on 03.08.2001. The said allotment was subsequently challenged by Mahendra Singh and others by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1270/2001 before the Division Bench of this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.05.2015 on the basis of a settlement arrived at inter se the parties. In terms of the said settlement, it was agreed that Mahavir Sadhna Sansthan would suitably modify the allotment and that equivalent land admeasuring the same area would be provided adjacent to Plot Nos. 508 and 509 within the same facility area, subject to certain setbacks. It is pertinent to note that the husband of the present respondent was also a party to the said settlement. In furtherance of the judgment dated 22.05.2015, the petitioner society amended its bye-laws on 18.01.2016 with the predominant objective of aligning its functioning with the mandate of the said judgment, and submitted the amended bye-laws to the JDA for issuance of a modified patta. Consequently, a revised patta along with a revised site plan was issued in favour of the petitioner on 12.02.2016. 4. It was further contended that this Court, vide judgment dated 22.05.2015, categorically upheld the legality of the [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (4 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] allotment made in favour of the petitioner society and the action of the JDA in executing the lease deed. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent preferred D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 10326/2016 alleging disobedience of the directions contained in the said judgment, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2016. It was submitted that despite the aforesaid, the respondent, exhibiting a pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation, instituted Civil Suit No. 81/2016 before the Court of Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur, seeking declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of the patta. The petitioner herein, in response thereto, preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint; however, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.09.2016. 5. It was further submitted that the parties have been embroiled in litigation for over a decade without any substantive resolution. In continuation of such conduct, the respondent instituted yet another suit in the year 2023 seeking permanent injunction, alleging that the petitioner had illegally dug a borewell in the setback area adjoining the respondent’s property and had continued such alleged illegal construction despite objections and complaint dated 05.06.2023. In response thereto, the petitioner categorically averred before the learned civil court that the said suit was a gross abuse of the process of law and further contended that it was, in fact, the respondent who had raised constructions in violation of JDA norms, including maintaining an open window towards the petitioner’s allotted land. It was also specifically stated that the petitioner had carried out all [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (5 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] constructions strictly in compliance with applicable rules and regulations, after obtaining due approval from the JDA on 17.08.2022. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, it was contended that the borewell in question had been dug approximately three months prior to the institution of the suit, to the full knowledge of the respondent and her family members, and that no permission is required under the applicable norms for digging a borewell for domestic use. It was further submitted that, driven by oblique motives, the respondent instituted successive suits seeking temporary injunctions, and vide order dated 25.03.2026, the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, allowed the temporary injunction application, inter alia directing that the petitioner shall not install any idol of the Jain religion and shall not use the suit property for any specific religion. 7. It was contended that the learned trial court gravely erred in construing the ‘suit property’ as a ‘community center’, as the same does not fall within such classification. It was further submitted that the allotment letter dated 28.07.2001 does not stipulate that the land in question is to be utilized exclusively as a community center. It was also pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 22.05.2015, had unequivocally held that the allotments made in favour of Hadoti Samaj and Mahavir Sadhna Sansthan were in accordance with law and within the authority of the JDA. The said judgment also considered the definition of ‘public utility purpose’ as envisaged under Rule 6-k of [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (6 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. For the sake on convenience the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “(6-K) "Public Utility Purpose" means use of any premises or open land or play ground for a school, college, hostel, dharmashala, public guest house, religious place, gaushala, public park or any other place of public utility excluding use of medical facilities;” 8. It was thus contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that installation of Jain idols in a portion of the building does not ipso facto amount to exclusive religious use of the premises. It was further submitted that, pursuant to the amendment of the bye-laws, the governing stipulation is that the facilities provided by the petitioner are to remain open for use by the general public of the locality. In this regard, it was demonstrated that the subject property has been regularly utilized for a variety of activities, including yoga classes conducted between 01.08.2025 and 03.01.2026, as well as for hosting condolence meetings, third-day ceremonies, birthday functions, social gatherings, and diverse religious and cultural events, without any discrimination on the basis of religion or caste. 9. In summation, it was contended that by virtue of the judicial pronouncements as well as the governing statutory and contractual framework, the petitioner has been duly authorized to utilize the allotted land and raise construction thereupon for the benefit of the general public, with the predominant objective of advancing the aims and objects of the society as enshrined in its [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (7 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] bye-laws. The impugned orders, therefore, suffer from manifest illegality inasmuch as they unjustifiably restrict the lawful use of the property by the petitioner, contrary to the settled legal position and the factual matrix on record. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and had submitted that the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, inasmuch as it seeks interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below vide orders dated 02.04.2026 and 25.03.2026 passed in T.I. Application No. 127/2025, sans considering the fact that the said orders are well-reasoned, based on material available on record, and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. It is settled law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked for re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings merely because another view is possible. 11. It was further submitted that the land in question was allotted pursuant to the State Government order dated 03.02.2001, followed by allotment, execution of lease deed and issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner. The said allotment was subjected to challenge before this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1270/2001, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 22.05.2015, whereby the allotment was upheld; however, it was categorically directed that the facility area shall not be used exclusively by followers of any particular religion and [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (8 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] must remain accessible to all residents. Thus the core issue in the present matter pertains to the nature and permissible use of the land, qua which it was submitted that the land forms part of a facility area meant for institutional/public use, and the said position stands conclusively established from official records of the Jaipur Development Authority obtained under the Right to Information Act, by the respondent. 12. Further, it was contended that the inspection report (Annexure R/1) records the purpose of allotment as Dharamshala/Hotel, reflecting institutional use. The office note forming part of official record (Annexure R/4) records the land as “सामुदाययि िे न” (community centre), clearly establishing that the sanctioned use is institutional and not religious. Further, communication dated 21.09.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-4, JDA (Annexure R/9) categorically clarifies that the sanctioned use of the land is ‘institutional (community hall)’. These official records conclusively demonstrate that the land is not meant for religious purposes. 13. In this backdrop, it was submitted that the petitioner had no authority whatsoever to install idols or convert the premises into a place of worship. The installation of idols in a property sanctioned as a community centre/institutional facility is per se impermissible, as it alters the very character of the land; and that the material available on record further establishes active misuse by the petitioner. The approved layout and building plan (Annexure R/5) clearly provides for stilt parking; however, the petitioner has illegally converted the same into a hall, which is [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (9 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] evident from the photographs (Annexure R/6). It was apprised to the Court that the competent authority has also taken cognizance of such violations and issued statutory notices to the petitioner (Annexure R/7) recording unauthorized construction and deviation from the sanctioned plan. It is further borne out from the record that on or about 01.08.2025, the petitioner installed idols and commenced religious activities within the premises/property in question, and that the photographs annexed as Annexure R/8 clearly depict installation of idols, including a large idol, along with deployment of bouncers and private security personnel, thereby restricting access to the general public and converting the premises into a controlled religious space. It was stoutly contended that such conduct is in toto inconsistent with the concept of a public facility area and clearly demonstrates misuse of the land. 14. Subsequently, it was argued that without prejudice to the above, even assuming arguendo that the petitioner seeks to justify such acts under the guise of the objects of the society, the issue is squarely governed by the binding judgment dated 22.05.2015, which categorically mandates that the facility area cannot be used exclusively by followers of the Jain/particular religion and must remain accessible to all residents of the society concerned. The said judgment, having attained finality upon dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (Annexure R/2) and rejection of the clarification application (Annexure R/3), is binding upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner has installed idols exclusively of the Jain religion, and no idols or symbols of any [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (10 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] other religion have been installed. Therefore, the selective installation clearly establishes that the premise is being used for exclusive propagation of a particular religion, which is directly contrary to the said judgment. It was further submitted that the revised patta dated 12.02.2016 incorporates a specific condition that the land and facilities shall be used by the general public irrespective of religion, and the petitioner had also furnished an undertaking dated 23.07.2022 (Annexure R/10) agreeing to abide by such conditions. However, the present conduct of the petitioner, involving religious conversion of the premises, installation of idols and restriction of access, is in direct violation of the patta conditions as well as the undertaking, thereby disentitling the petitioner from any equitable relief. 15. Upon a meticulous and comprehensive examination of the record, and having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court, at this stage, considers it apposite to delineate the following incontrovertible facts qua the prolonged litigation revolving around the property in question: S. No. Title Issue Ratio (relevant extract reproduced) 1. DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1270/2001 (Decided vide judgment dated 22.05.2015) Filed by one Mahendra Singh, assailing the allotment made by JDA in favor of the “23. We find that the petitioners have not been able to establish that the land in dispute was reserved as park. [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (11 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] petitioner and one Hadoti Samaj. Reliance on the members list, published by the JDA in its Booklet, in which plot Nos.803 to 808 have been shown as park, does not establish that the land was left for park. In the layout plan, as submitted and approved by the JDA, the land was admittedly reserved as facility, which may include park, but that it cannot be said that the facility area can only be used as park, and not for any other community purposes. The disputed land was never declared as park under the Rajasthan Public Park Act, 1956. The “Public Utility Purpose”, under Rule 6-K of the Rules of 1974, means use of any premises or open land or playground for a school, college, hostel, dharamshala, public guest house, religious place, gaushala, public park, or any other [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (12 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] place of public utility excluding use of medical facilities. The layout plan submitted by the Society on 23.11.1983, delineated the land as facility area. The Building Plan Committee-II, in its 23rd meeting dated 12.04.1984, reserved the plot as facility area. The building plan of Mahaveer Nagar has 11 more plots, of different sizes, left/reserved for facility area, and thus, we do not find any merit in the submission that the land left in plot Nos.803 to 808, can be used only as a park, and for no other purposes. 27. We may further observe that the Mahaver Sadhna Kendra cannot usurp the facility area only for followers of Jain religion. Once the area has been earmarked as facility area, it means that all the residents of the colony have a right to use the facilities established on such land. The allotment [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (13 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] of plot measuring 708.33 sq. yds. to Mahavir Sadhna Kendra, would not allow it exclusive use of the plot and its building by the Jain Community only. 28. The Mahavir Sadhna Kendra, the respondent No.4, is therefore, directed to amend the bye-laws of the Society, to allow the use of their land and building by the general public, with predominant purpose of propagating the objects of the Society, as provided in the bye-laws. The property and its facility should be allowed to be used by the residents of the colony. The use of land for exclusive purpose of Jain religion, may give cause of action to any resident of the colony to file a civil suit against such use.” 2. DB Civil Contempt Petition No. Filed by the respondent herein, qua the Indisputably, the present petitioner was not party to the proceedings [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (14 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] 10326/2016 (decided vide order dated 06.09.2016) disobedience of the directions enumerated in the order dated 22.05.2015. and that apart her petition is in respect of assailing the order impugned dt.22.5.2015, but what is being directed by this Court, if has not been complied with by the concerned respondents under order impugned dt. 22.5.2015, the person who is party to the proceedings may avail the remedy. 3. Civil Suit No. 81/2016 before the Court of Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur (decided vide order dated 28.06.2016) Instituted by the respondent herein against the petitioner, for declaration of permanent injunction and cancelation of patta, wherein the petitioner herein, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint. 4. SB Civil Revision Petition No. 185/2016 (decided vide judgment dated 23.02.2017) Filed by the petitioner herein, against the order dated 28.09.2016 12. From the above emerging position this Court is at a loss as to how the plaintiff can attack the allotment in the instant civil suit on the basis that her [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (15 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] husband’s presence on 24.04.2007 was wrongly recorded, when the Division Bench of this Court has already settled such issue. This court is of the firm view that such controversy cannot be reopened or agitated again or can be made the basis of a suit, when the plaintiff respondent has not even challenged such a finding by the Division Bench of this court. Thus the respondent- plaintiff was not entitled to file the instant suit on the basis of such alleged non- presence on meeting dt 24.4.2007. 15. The directions given by the Division Bench displays that the allotment and issuance of lease- deed to the petitioner defendant Mahaveer Sadhna Kendra, was held to be made in accordance with law, but it was directed that use of the land and building constructed by the society had [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (16 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] to be primarily for general public with participation of the residents of the colony. The Hon’ble Division Bench did not pass directions as to the inclusion or non-inclusion of members of any sect or religion, as members of the petitioner society. Thus, the plaintiff’s allegation that non inclusion of the plaintiff or any member of the colony as member of the petitioner society, was infringement of the Division Bench judgment providing the plaintiff cause of action to institute the instant suit, fails, and on this count no cause of action can be said to have accrued to the plaintiff to institute the instant suit. 16. The next ground raised is the assertion in the plaint that the defendant petitioner was directed to amend the bye-laws and the defendant has not amend the bye-laws to include participation by members who are [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (17 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] not follower of Lord Mahaveer in the affairs of defendant petitioner. To evaluate such assertion, para 28 of the Division Bench judgment in verbatim deserved to be mentioned :- “28. The Mahavir Sadhna Kendra, the respondent No.4, is, therefore, directed to amend the bye- laws of the Society, to allow the use of their land and building by the general public, with predominant purpose of propagating the objects of the Society, as provided in the bye-laws. The property and its facility should be allowed to be used by the residents of the colony. The use of land for exclusive purpose of Jain religion, may give cause of action to any resident of the colony to file a civil suit against such use.”. “17. The above para also discloses that the Division Bench only passed direction with respect to use of the land and [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (18 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] building under the patta held by the defendant petitioner society. Directions were not issued with respect to the membership of the petitioner defendant society. The right to file a civil suit was given only in case of breach in user of the land and building by the defendant society. The plaintiff has nowhere asserted in the plaint that the defendant society is using the land building contrary to the directions given by the Division Bench. The plaintiff has categorically asserted in the plaint itself that no permanent building has been constructed upon the land and in absence of such construction, question of user contrary to the directions did not arise at all. Thus even if such plaint averments are taken in its face value and for the sake of arguments urging to be true at the stage seeking [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (19 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] direction u/O.7 R.11 CPC the same did not provide the plaintiff cause of action to institute a suit for declaration and injunction as claimed. 5. Civil Suit No. 72/2023 before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I Instituted by the respondent herein, for permanent injunction against the plaintiff; alleging that the plaintiff had illegally dug a borewell in the setback area, adjoining the respondent’s property. 6. Temporary Injunction Application No. 56/2023, before the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Metropolitan –I Moved by the respondent herein, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. (Dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2023) izkFkhZ;k vf/koDrk }kjk nkSjkus cgl ;g dFku fd;k fd vizkFkhZ us lsVcSd ,fj;k ij cksjoSy dk fuekZ.k djok;k gS tks fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 22-05-2015 ds foijhr gSA blds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ vf/koDrk }kjk dFku fd;k fd fookfnr lEifRr ij tks lsVcSd NksMk x;k gS oks vksiu Vw LdkbZ NksMk x;k gS] cksjoSy djok;k tkuk vLFkkbZ o LFkkbZ fuekZ.k esa lfEefyr ugha gSA blds laca/k esa jktLFkku Hkou fofu;e 2020 ds fu;e 10-8¼[k½ esa viuh cgl ds leFkZu n”kkZ;k x;kA bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; dk er ;g gS fd jktLFkku Hkou fuekZ.k fofu;e 2020 ds fu;e 10-8 ¼[k½ esa ;g micaf/kr gS fd dqvka vkSj dqa, dh lajpuk [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (20 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] ftudh mapkbZ 2-1 ehVj ls vf/kd ugha gks] dks vkPNknu ugha ekuk tk ldrkA mijksDr fu;e esa oksjcSy] dq, vFkok blls lacaf/kr fuekZ.k dks vkPNknu fuekZ.k ugha ekuk gSA izkFkZuk i= esa cksjoSy dh mapkbZ 2-1 ehVj ls vf/kd gksus ds rF; vafdr ugha fd, gSaA vkxs ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkk }kjk tokc ftldk dksbZ [kaMu izkFkhZ }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA oksjCkSy dk fuekZ.k pkj ekg iwoZ fd, tkus ds rF; vafdr fd, gSA ijarq bl vof/k ds nkSjku izkFkhZ;k } kjk dksbZ fof/kd dk;Zokgh t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vFkok lacaf/kr izkf/kdj.k esa dh xbZ gks ,sls rF; izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr ugha gSA t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk fn;k x;k uksfVl fnukad 06-07-2023 Hkw[akM la[;k 509 ds lkeus fuekZ.k lkexzh j[ks tkus ls lacaf/kr gSA mijksDr uksfVl esa t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk mudks vuqeksfnr ekufp= ds foijhr tkdj fuekZ.k dk;Z fd, tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ rF; vafdr ugha gSA izkFkhZ;k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`’Vkar gLrxr izkFkZuk i= ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k gLrxr izdj.k ij pLik ugha gksrs gSaA izkFkhZ;k }kjk dsoy ek= d;kl@ laHkkoukvksa ds vk/kkj ij fuekZ.k dks leqnk;@lekt fo”ks’k dk eafnj crkrs gq, ;g vLFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k tkuk izFken`’r;k nf”kZr gksrk gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk fIyaFk ysoy dh mapkbZ Lohd`fr vFkok fu;eksa ds foijhr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost is”k ugha fd, lkFk gh bldh f”kdk;r t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa dh xbZ gks ,sls Hkh dksbZ nLrkost is”k ugha fd, gSaA vr% mijksDr izFke n`’r;k ekeyk izkFkhZ;k vius i{k esa lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgha gSA ¼2½ lqfo/kk dk lUrqyu o ¼3½ viw.kZuh; {kfr%& [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (21 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] 7- lqfo/kk dh n`f’V ls o rF;ksa dh iqujko`fr ls fojr jgus ds fy, mDr nksuksa fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k ,d lkFk fd;k tk jgk gSA pwafd mijksDr izFke n`’V;k ekeyk izkFkhZ;k Lo;a ds i{k esa lkfcr djus esa foQy jgha gS bl otg ls izFke n`’V;k ekeyk dk fcanq izkFkhZ;k ds foi{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk tokc izkFkZuk i= esa ;g rF; vafdr fd, x, gS fd fuekZ.k dk;Z lkekU; tu iz;ksx dh jkf”k ls fuekZ.k djok;k tk jgk gS ,oa lsVcSd Hkh vuqeksfnr ekufp= ls vf/kd NksM+k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn izkFkhZ ds i{k esa vLFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk izkFkZuk i= dk vuqrks’k Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rks vizkFkhZ dks izkFkhZ;k dh rqyuk esa vf/kd vlqfo/kk ,oa ,slh viw.kZuh; {kfr gksxh ftldh /ku ds :i esa iwfrZ ugha dh tk ldrh vr% mijksDr nksuksa fcanq lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr Hkh izkFkhZ;k ds foi{k esa r; fd, tkrs gSA 8- pwfad izdj.k esa izFken`’V~;k ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr laca/kh fcUnqvksa dks izkFkhZ;k ds foi{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ;k dk izkFkZuk i= ckcr~ vLFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk vLohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 7. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 12/2023 before the Additional District Judge No. 2 Jaipur Metropolitan- I Preferred by the respondent assailing the order dated 20.07.2023. (Dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2023 ) 13- vizkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh mtz jgk gS fd tsMh, }kjk Lohd`r uD”ks esa 22 fiyj gh gSa tcfd vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk 34 fiyj dk voS/k fuekZ.k ekSds ij fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ us Lohd`r ls vf/kd fiyjksa dk fuekZ.k eafnj cukus dh cnuh;rh ls fd;k gS] bl laca/k esa ekSds ds QksVksxzkQl~ Hkh vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa] mu QksVksxzkQl~ dks ns[ks tkus ls izFken`’V;k bl Lrj ij ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk vkoafVr {ks= esa eafnj dk fuekZ.k fd;k tk jgk gksA tgka rd izkFkhZ;k dk ;g dFku fd vizkFkhZ }kjk LVhYV ikfdZax dk fuekZ.k 1-3 QhV dh mapkbZ ds LFkku ij 1-5 QhV dh [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (22 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] mapkbZ ij fd;k x;k gS rFkk LVhYV ikfdZax ds vukf/kd`r :i ls 12 fiYyj uD”ks ds foijhr cuk fn;s x;s gksa] ftlls mDr LVhYV ikfdaZx ds dke ugha vk;sxhA vizkFkhZ }kjk LVhYV ikfdaZx dk fuekZ.k fu/kkZfjr mapkbZ ls vf/kd fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ;k }kjk dksbZ rduhdh fjiksVZ U;k;ky; ds le{k bl Lrj ij izLrqr ugha dh gSA tgka rd vizkFkhZ }kjk vkoafVr {ks= esa fu;eksa ds foijhr fd;s x;s fuekZ.k ds laca/k esa izkfFkZ;k }kjk tsMh, esa f”kdk;r fd;s tkus rFkk tsMh, }kjk dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk laca/k gS] bl laca/k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkosatksa ls tsMh, }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fo:} fu;eksa ds foijhr fd;s x;s voS/k fuekZ.k ds laca/k esa dh xbZ f”kdk;r ij tsMh, dh uksV”khV fnukafdr 27-07-2023 ds vuqlkj mDr f”kdk;r ij tsMh, }kjk mik;qDr tksu&4 tfoizk] t;iqj ds dk;kZy; ls bl laca/k esa fjiksVZ ryc dh xbZ gSA tsMh, }kjk vizkFkhZ dks izkfFkZ;k }kjk dh xbZ f”kdk;r fnukad 06-07-2023 dks Hkw[k.M ds lkeus fuekZ.k lkexzh j[ks tkus ds laca/k esa uksfVl gS] uk fd voS/k fuekZ.k fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA bl izdkj bl Lrj ij vizkFkhZ }kjk vkoafVr”kqnk Hkw[k.M ij voS/k fuekZ.k fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ tsMh, dh fjiksVZ i=koyh ij ugha gSA 14- izkfFkZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`’Vkar ,vkbZvkj 1985 nsgyh 293 esa ekeuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk E;wfufliy ck;ykWt ds fo:} fd;s x;s voS/k fuekZ.k ds fo:} iMkSlh dks fuekZ.k jksds tkus ds laca/k esa fu’ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ekuk gSA U;kf;d n`’Vkar vkj,yvkj 1988¼1½ jkt- 850] vkj,yvkj 1988¼2½ jkt- 871 ,oa MCY;w,ylh 2002¼2½ jkt- 362 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd Vh-vkbZ dk [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (23 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] fuLrkj.k djrs le; U;k;ky; dks i{kdkjku ds e/; fooknksa dk vafre :i ls fuLrkj.k ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA tgka i{kdkjku ds e/; xaHkhj fookn fo|eku gks] ogka okn ds vafre fuLrkj.k rd ekSds dh ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kk tkuk vko”;d gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fl}kUrksa ls ;g U;k;ky; iw.kZ lger gS] ijUrq mDr U;kf;d n`’Vkar gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUurk ds dkj.k izkFkhZ i{k dks dksbZ lgk;rk iznku ugha djrs gSA 15- mijksDr foospukuqlkj fo}ku fopkj.k }kjk izFken`’V;k ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viwj.kh; {kfr ds fcUnq vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ;k ds i{k esa cuuk ugha ik;s tkus esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd ,oa rkfRod =qfV ugha dh gS ,oa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k fu’d’kZ iw.kZr% fof/kd ,oa U;k;ksfpr gS] ftl fu’d’kZ esa gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ U;k;ksfpr vk/kkj ugha gksus ds dkj.k vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 8. II Temporary Injunction Application (CIS No. 446/2025) for grant of mandatory and temporary injunction Moved by the respondent herein; without impleading JDA as a party respondent, therein. (Allowed vide order dated 25.03.2026) 5- gLrxr f}rh; vLFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk izkFkZuk i= ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dk eq[;r% ;g dFku jgk fd vizkFkhZ la- 1 dks lkekU; vketu ds mi;ksx gsrq lkeqnkf;d dsanz ds fy, vkoafVr Hkwfe ij Lohd`r ekufp=ksa ds foijhr fuekZ.k dk;Z iw.kZ djok;k tk pqdk gS ,oa vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk mDr Hkwfe dks lkekU; vketu ds mi;ksx esa ugha ysdj ek= tSu /keZ ds vuq;kf;;ksa gsrq mi;ksx esa fy;k tk jgk gS ftlds [kaMu djrs gq, vizkFkhZ dk eq[;r% ;g rdZ jgk fd vizkFkhZ }kjk vuqeksfnr ekufp=ksa ds vuq:i fuekZ.k dk;Z djok;k x;k gS ,oa mDr Hkwfe dk mi;ksx fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fdlh /keZ fo”ks’k@ tSu /keZ dk izpkj izlkj djus ds fy, ugha fd;k tk jgk gS ,oa laLFkk ds [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (24 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] mnns”;ksa ds vuq:i lkeqnkf;d dasnz ds fy, vkoafVr Hkwfe dks laLFkk fo/kku i= esa fu/kkZfjr mnns”;ksa ds vuq:i gh mi;ksx miHkksx esa fy;k tk jgk gSA tgkW ij orZeku esa ;ksx dsanz lapkfyr fd;k tk jgk gS ftlesa lkekU; vketu }kjk fgLlk fy;k tk jgk gSA i=koyh ij ;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd egkohj lk/kuk dsanz dks tsMh, } kjk lkeqnkf;d dasnz @/keZ”kkyk ds fy, oknxzLr Hkwfe vkoafVr dh xbZ gS ,oa ftl ij tsMh, }kjk vuqeksfnr ekufp=ksa ds vuq:i mDr Hkwfe dk mi;ksx ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns”k fnukad 22- 05-2015 ds vuq:i lkekU; vketuksa ds mi;ksx esa fy;s tkus ds “krZ ds lkFk la”kksf/kr lkbZV Iyku o fuekZ.k Lohd`fr tkjh dh xbZA 9- lqfo/kk dh n`f’V ls o rF;ksa dh iqujko`fr ls dh jgus ds fy, mDr nksuksa fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k ,d lkFk fd;k tk jgk gSA pwafd izFke n`’V;k ekeyk izkFkhZ vius i{k esa lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gS ,oa izdj.k esa vkoafVr Hkwfe vketu ds iz;kstukFkZ gsrq vkoafVr dh xbZ gS ,sls esa ;fn lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr ;fn izkFkhZ esa foi{k esa r; fd, tkrs gS rks izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ rqyuk esa vf/kd vlqfo/kk esa viw.kZuh; {kfr dkfjr gksxhA vr% mi;qZDr izFke n`’V;k ekeys ds fcanq ds izdk”k esa mi;ZqDr nksuksa fcanq Hkh izkFkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd, tkrs gSA 10- pwafd izdj.k esa izFken`’V;k ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr laca/kh fcanqvksa izkFkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fuEu izdkj ls Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 9. Civil Misc. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11/2026 before Preferred by the petitioner herein, against 2 o 3 lqfo/kk dk larqyu o viwrZuh; {kfr %& izdj.k esa tgkW rd mDr nksuksa fcUnqvksa dk laca/k gSA pwafd izFke n`’V;k ekeyk izkFkhZ;k ds i{k esa [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (25 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] the Additional District Judge, No.1 Jaipur Metropolitan – I, Jaipur the order dated 25.03.2026. (dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2026) fofu”pr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fookfnr vkoafVr Hkwfe esa vizkFkhZx.k dks fdlh /keZ fo”ks’k dh uwfrZ;ka LFkkfir djus ls ugha jksds tkus o fookfnr Hkwfe dks /keZ fo”ks’k ds mi;ksx&miHkksx esa ysus ls ugha jksds tkus dh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ;k dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds fo:} vf/kd vlqfo/kk o viwj.kh; {kfr gksxhA vr% mDr nksuksa fcUnq Hkh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lgh :i ls izkFkhZ;k ds i{k esa r; fd, gSA mijksDr foospu ds vuqpkj esjs fouez er esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us rhuksa fcUnq lgh :i ls fofuf”p fd, x, gSA vr% vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy lkjghu ik;h tkus ls vLohdkj dh tkdj [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA (Emphasis supplied) 16. Having undertaken a scrupulous examination of the record and an assiduous scrutiny of the protracted litigation pertaining to the matter at hand, this Court is of the considered view that the issues arising for its determination may be delineated as whether the learned trial courts have committed a jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality in passing the impugned orders dated 25.03.2026 and 02.04.2026; whether the nature and permissible use of the land in question, being part of a ‘facility area’, permits its utilization for community purpose albeit, there is installation of idols; whether the petitioner has acted in violation of the obligatory judgment dated 22.05.2015, the amended bye-laws dated 18.01.2016, and the revised patta dated 12.02.2016; and whether the installation of Jain idols and the alleged user of the premises constitutes exclusive religious use, or remains within the ambit of permissible public/institutional use. [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (26 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] 17. The foundational dispute pertains to the nature and permissible use of the land allotted to the petitioner pursuant to the State Government order dated 03.02.2001. It is undisputed that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner attained finality in terms of the judgment dated 22.05.2015 passed by the Division Bench, wherein the allotment was upheld. However, a significant rider was imposed that the ‘facility area’ in question shall not be used exclusively by followers of any particular religion and must remain accessible to all residents. This Court further observes that the petitioner, in furtherance of the said judgment, obtained a revised patta dated 12.02.2016 and amended its bye-laws on 18.01.2016. The material placed on record reflects that the subject property has been utilized for multiple community-oriented purposes, including yoga classes being conducted between 01.08.2025 and 03.01.2026, as well as for social, cultural and community gatherings, conducting condolence meetings etc. without discrimination any discrimination on the basis of religion or caste. 18. The contention of the respondent who is not even appearing in the representational capacity qua bunch of aggrieved people, as the property in question is locate din a society and even momentarily it cannot be assumed that the respondent herein, shall be sole aggrieved persons, and is herself having construction which is in violation to the governing JDA guidelines qua the set-backs of a property, that the installation of idols ipso facto alters the nature of the land to an exclusive religious use does not appear to be borne out from the entirety of the record, [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (27 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] as no documents/complaints of what so ever nature against the petitioners herein is placed on record. Mere installation of idols in a part of the premises, in absence of cogent material demonstrating complete exclusion of the general public, cannot be conclusively held to amount to exclusive religious conversion of the property. India is a country known for its diversity and peaceful survival of all the communities, thus, there are various sites which, though possess religious attributes, but are widely recognized as public, cultural and tourist spaces, accessible to persons of all faiths and frequently utilized for purposes extending beyond mere religious worship. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the determinative test is not the mere existence of idols or religious symbols, but the dominant purpose and actual usage of the property. 19. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that equity leans in favour of substance over form, and the true test lies in the dominant purpose of usage rather than isolated acts. The record indicates that the dominant use of the premises continues to be for public and community purposes. In the present case, this Court finds that the learned trial courts have proceeded on an erroneous premise by equating the ‘facility area’ with a ‘community centre’ in a restrictive sense, and by presuming that installation of idols necessarily leads to exclusive religious use, without appreciating the broader factual matrix and the continued public usage of the premises. Withal, it can be jot down that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and misinterpretation of the binding judgment dated 22.05.2015. The [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (28 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] said judgment does not impose an absolute embargo on any religious activity, but only prohibits exclusive use by followers of a particular religion. CONCLUSION 20. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court holds that the impugned orders dated 25.03.2026 and 02.04.2026 are vitiated by perversity and misapplication of law; that the learned trial courts have failed to appreciate the true import of the judgment dated 22.05.2015 and the nature of permissible use of the land; that the material on record does not establish exclusive religious use so as to warrant the restrictions imposed; that the nature of allotment is relevant, but must be read with actual usage, as installation of idols alone is not determinative unless it leads to exclusive religious appropriation; that the correct test is whether the property continues to serve public/community purpose, which aligns with your finding regarding yoga classes, public functions, and open access; that courts must avoid mechanical interpretation and instead adopt a holistic, purposive approach; that the construction as made by the petitioner qua Saraswati Bhawan, Jinalaya, Yoga Center-hall, pustakalya, is in abidance of the building plan, as approved by the JDA on 17.08.2022, and is open for general public; that the JDA was not impleaded as a party in the injunction suits by the respondent herein, despite the fact that the said authority is a proper party; that the learned trial courts, whilst considering the injunction applications have manifestly acted ultra vires to the jurisdiction, as they have granted directions restraining the petitioner from [2026:RJ-JP:18630] (29 of 29) [CW-7478/2026] installing any idol or using the premise for Jain religion, albeit it virtually resulted in deciding of suit whilst passing interim orders, and the same being beyond the prayers as asked therein; that the respondent herein has approached the Court with unclean hands, and is rather just one out of umpteen people who reside in the same vicinity of the property in question, and have never made any complaints against the petitioner, as no such material is placed on record. 21. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be, and is hereby allowed, and the impugned orders dated 02.04.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jaipur in CMA No. 11/2026 and order dated 25.03.2026 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur in Temporary Injunction Application No. 127/2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. 22. The parties shall, however, remain bound by the condition that the premises shall not be used in a manner that excludes access to the general public or converts the facility area into an exclusively religious domain, in terms of the binding judgment dated 22.05.2015. 23. No order are made as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J Preeti Asopa