IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO. / 2028) Babu Lal Meena Versus M/s Satguru Premises Pvt Ltd [s. No] PARTICULARS PAGE NO 4, Memo of Appeal 1 of | ‘ertified co} of judgment and PY judg ¢-2Th decree dated 18.11.2023 Mob. 928% mat peas i Through counsel fps Sj) 22> (Dr. P C Jain) Advocate " Caw 2 Saeaee 1 Shy iE CIG 7IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR S8.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO. / 202% Babu Lal Meena Versus M/s Satguru Premises Pvt Ltd SYNOPSIS e That a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no 1 before the court below. * That appellant defendant has filed the detailed written statement and raise the plea that another suit is also pending between the same parties regarding the property in dispute. And the suit filed by the defendant-appellant whichwas prior in time and as such by virtue of section 10 of CPC the same could not be decided. *® That the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.11.2023 partly decreed the suit. Hence the present appeal is being filed. yp eon Counsel for the Appellant ape Rov s4-7,IN THE HIGE COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO. / 2024 Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Hardev meena Resident of - Meethawala Kua, Near Railway Fatak, Dausa District Dausa. ..-Appellant-Defendant No 1 Versus 1. M/s Satguru Premises Pvt Ltd. Through Director 0 Shri Mohit Tambi S/o Shri Satish Tambi, Tambi Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur .. Respondent-Plaintiff Regional Manager Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. Dausa Respondent-defendant no 2 S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2023 IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 29/2014 (77/2018) (85/2018) PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT DAUSA, DISTRICT DAUSA PRESIDED BY SHRI PREMCHAND SHARMA, ENTITLED M/S SATGURU PREMISES PVI LTD VERSUS BABU LAL MEENA & ORS THEREBY PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION VALUATION OF THE SUIT Rs. 51,400/- COURT FEES AFFIX IN SUIT Rs. 3,055/- COURT FEES PAID ON APPEAL Rs. 3,055/- a een) BYTO HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS: The present appeal is preferred under the following circumstances: 1 That a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was filed by the respondent no 1 before the court below with the following prayer:- @) ae ad Reg sfearshrr aad onerre Pteren fee were oe pfearét Sen 1 ERI Tea sneer @ faata ony TE walt wea wan wea & ahh otk aad og dar @ gear oa we fee wr were fren aT (@) ae wa frwe wftarderr feat frat cra sitar ver 1 a ee ara a eng faterst 8 oarq wearer one fe ae ad @ afi Rem ory ote 4 fee wer or org Prater ar wy a et ceri wet or ag fete oftatia oy ar a wet a yee saa aT a erties ot a a ag day gone ang, a ter oo fart wre, wie gone 8 aed! @) ae f& wal geen ae ot ofsardhror S fear ad (©) ae & ore ogee ot ad 3 eo A area care of Ure, Sra RATE GATE | That the suit was contested by filing written statement from and on behalf of the defendant appellant herein. the main qantentions thereby argon) MLdisputing the suit a few main submissions were as follows:- staan wert 1 ae fe ar a fie ofa & mer we ae aegis TH Re wea ws wctc onifter feo d am & one fren wa S asi aftad va we fret art vital tan 7 d wo 4 tg 8 vad ae a ada aE ei a fea ag we 8 oho oem aa 81 wife Gadi ae Ph vitae der We amr mgs ae @ gafery ah aT ae aT 10 oO So S wed WT ara 81 ef fa wierd A artes 7 ae area a aT aA WaT TAR 204, 905, 307, 300 ard a sANter, |e ceo cher A fer & war gt S ser ah ote Rat A shite as 2g enBfaa Ft ah yA aa TAR 208 fe 31 eer Sako Hautat Gah Pa ak ad F aad H af a wax 200 flere 8a oer Bh oe cere ga ara oT Aton Fare wer dest St artert A afi war FX 300 wo 303 7 TEAR Ya ATG womens ya Wratten ane ton Maret Veer wre Hy eTdar wt a GET Fr 326,327,328 fem 81 ae fis ret vftard a var afta ardent o wat St aft A wea worert aR 11 & om citer Ge cevtte cher ror det } |aeT Aa 208 F sax wg as SSM aM a 30 Be ther Tee Red aH aa Baw TT sgh ae Fea 250 ITH OTE ee SrA ee 2 weet area oH iter BEB eT FAR 298 H Go or WS UB TE! Se pfteret at ft dar 30 Ge char 31 rr wftardt gar aad H exit wy 30 he aS aR a Se onett Gee aftler aft ox om Ga Fear oy SerMSt eee only eae S eT g vee fir utah a fir afterdt a ofa ort gaa yf ve oar TAT Bi Set Wear 74g THES offew BAG B arg Bi saa WA TH Ahr alent o Hs ofan S we wT eter 47-48 af Bo ote wae Boe SHAT F AT wa on VF a oH fr fred 3 fs widardl ar ohare sar Tee S St one ag F ona oa F aU ae TY Be ae me Sere ont St oa a oa F Gad TRS wT A Hear at GaTOR Gent andes a arent ite) se BI 81 wee TRG A a ae He a El aot EB GIO HYaide ox Urea wre fear er 31 Pa oltre ot cnet fh ox on ors & fey ga eR SaTeTST GE TT el Bi fr ofdardt Sea eG wT Fea 47-48 af Bo side wr aaa @ er 8 vided) a vad TS & aad Sen or Genter wea STS watery ard & firs wftiondt & sea Tes & weet See A aren ster aT fers wfearal EPR wt eps A wear wr ones ga SerTSt SHR one ST oT Ta TS Tet Ae SAIS UG BT ig SAA HI I St SG ait we BI 4. ag fe a a ae A orrandt Ha BUT orraeR@ wo B vad GaT are eefrae S ‘ae fara 3 oh fate gol wx ee fea oF ae eI That the trial court striked out 6 issues including issue of relief. Issue no. 1 was decided in favour of plaintiff while issue no. 2 was decided against plaintiff issue no.3 have been left undecided but it was stated that the plaintiff was entitled to have the injunction in his favour in spite the fact that in view of the decision of issue no.3 and 4 was left undecided. The suit was therefore partly decreed. That issue no 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff in terms of that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the premises as have been described in the para no 2 of the plaint. issue no 2 has been decided in favour of the present appellant and as against the plaintiff while for issue no 3 it has been stated that the suit was filed by the defendant-appellant which was prior in time and as such by virtue of section 10 of CPC the same could not be decided. Issue no 4 remained undecided, thus the suit of plaintiff was aged m9partly decreed. Against the said judgment and decree dated 18.11.2023 the present appeal is being filed on the following grounds amongst others without to prejudice to each other:- Grounds A. That issue no 1 has wrongly been decided in as much as against the facts and preponderance of evidence. No proper evidence was on record so as to decide the said issue in favour of the plaintiff. B. That issue no 2 and issue no 3 has been decided so also in view of the decision ofissue no 3 the matter could have been left without deciding the whole suit. It is also worthwhile to state that the present defendant has filed writ petition before this Hon'ble court which is pending after issuing the notices to the plaintiff but even than the trial court has proceeded to decide the whole suit which is also illegal in nature. That the decision in the present case could have the prejudicial effect on the trial of the previously filed suit which is pending before the trial court D. That the judgment and decree arrived at by the trial court is not in accordance with law. es oe TEs mo!E. That the trial court has fallen into serious error of law while not discussing the evidence in a proper way. The evidence of the defendant have not been considered in the right perspective. The commissioner has also not been considered properly. F. That the proper issue have not been framed thereby causing mis-trial and prejudicially effecting the rights of the appellant. G. That the proper opportunity of adducing the evidence to the defendant/Appellant has not been allowed by the court below. H. That the present suit was liable to be stayed in view of the previously filed suit was on record and issues have been framed in previously filed suit and the matter was sub-judiced in the previously filed suit and the writ petition no.5013/2020 was pending “pefore this Hon'ble court wherein the opposite counsel has also given the appearance, under such circumstances at the most the previously filed suit could also be decided simultaneou: 5. That the other grounds and submissions will be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal.PRAYER It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record from the court below examine the same and while allowing the appeal set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2023 passed by the trial court. The suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed with cost throughout. And pass such other orders which are found in the interest of justice and in favour of the plaintiff appellant. The cost of the appeal be also allowed. THROUGH COUNSEL Qesmes (Dr.-P.C. Jain) R/229/1964 Mob. No. 9928820020 Roshan Yishykarma R/{1P7_/2023 9530270700 Advocates Email: pcjainadvocate@gmail.com NOTES :- 1. That no such appeal has ever been filed before this Hon'ble Court. 2. That the P.F. Notices shall be submitted in time after the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. The appeal has been typed on tough stout papers by my private steno. 4. That this appeal is entitled to be heard by this bench as territorial jurisdiction lies herein. he sy 202 e COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. CAD)