CW/10222/2026 of NATHI DEVI W/O RAMLAL D/O LATE JAINARAYAN Vs KALYAN S/O KALURAM on 17 August 2026

Order

17/08/2026

1. Petitioner is plaintiff and has invoked the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 30.05.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, allowing civil miscellaneous appeal filed by respondent No.1-defendant under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC and setting aside the injunction order dated 15.11.2025, passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.15, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan-I on application for temporary injunction filed by petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

(2 of 6) [CW-10222/2026]

2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.

3. It appears the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying to declare the registered Will dated 18.01.1988 as null and void and to grant consequential injunction. Along with the civil suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed, praying to restrain respondent-defendant not to transfer the suit property in question during course of civil suit. On the application for temporary injunction, learned trial Court granted injunction vide order dated 15.11.2025 and restrained the respondent No.1 no to sell, transfer and otherwise create third party interest in the suit property and to maintain status quo, whereagainst respondent No.1 preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 30.05.2026, set aside the injunction order dated 15.11.2025, hence thereagainst this writ petition has been filed by petitioner.

4. Suit properties are agricultural land measuring 1.4100 Hectare situated in Village Gwalini, Tehsil Tunga, District Jaipur detailed out in Para No.4 of the application for temporary injunction.

5. In appears that the lands in question were recorded in the name of Kalu, who through his registered Will dated 18.01.1988 bequeathed his properties in favour of Kalyan, who happens to be son of his daughter-Harbai. After death of Kalu, based on the registered Will, lands have been recorded in the name of Kalyan under the mutation No.407 dated 18.05.1992 and since then, Kalyan as sole recorded khatedar, is in cultivation and possession of the lands in question.

(3 of 6) [CW-10222/2026]

6. It appears that petitioner-plaintiff, claiming herself to be grand-daughter of Kalu, claimed her khatedari rights and possession on the basis of inheritance and filed a revenue suit for declaration of khatedari right, but revenue suit has been dismissed.

7. It appears that thereafter, petitioner challenged the registered Will of Kalu by filing the present civil suit in the year 2024, it means after expiry of about 33 years and also prayed to grant a decree for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, petitioner prayed to grant temporary injunction in her favour restraining Kalyan not to alienate/transfer the lands in question.

8. Learned Appellate Court in the order impugned dated 30.05.2026 noticed that the prayer for temporary injunction made after 33 years is uncalled for more so when as per revenue record, Kalyan is recorded khatedar of the lands in question since 18.05.1992. Appellate Court noticed that petitioner has not placed a single document or any other iota of evidence to show that the lands in question were ancestral property of Kalu. Appellate Court also notices that the cultivatory possession of Kalyan over the lands in question has not been denied by the petitioner. Appellate Court clearly observed that the injunction order passed by the trial Court dated 15.11.2025 suffers from vice of arbitrariness, perversity and suffers from erroneous exercise of discretionary power as petitioner miserably failed to prove prima facie case for grant of injunction in her favour, however, the trial Court granted injunction order.

9. It is trite law that grant or refusal of any injunction order on the application for temporary injunction passed by the trial Court

(4 of 6) [CW-10222/2026] may be interfered with by the Appellate Court, if the order suffers from vice of arbitrariness, perversity or has been passed in wrong exercise of discretionary jurisdiction without any substantive material and merely on the assumption and presumption. In support of such proposition of law, reference of celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd., reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727 would be suffice which still holds the field and has been followed recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Ors., reported in [(2024) 11 SCC 351].

10. In the present case, this Court conquers with the findings recorded by the Appellate Court and finds that the trial Court granted injunction order in favour of petitioner-plaintiff without producing any material or prima facie evidence by plaintiff, to show the lands in question as ancestral. Mere averments pleaded in the plaint that lands in question are ancestral is not suffice. Whereas in the Will itself the lands in question has been disclosed as self-earned property of Kalu. Trial Court ignored the delay of 33 years and the fact that signature of petitioner's mother, in the capacity of one of witness, finds place on the Will and based on this Will, the lands in question is solely recorded in the name of defendant-Kalyan since 18.05.1992. Apparently, order of trial Court appears to be perfunctory in nature. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, Appellate Court has rightly reversed the order of temporary injunction and acted within exercise of its jurisdiction, as such the impugned order does not call for any interference in

(5 of 6) [CW-10222/2026] exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not akin to appellate or revisional jurisdiction and is limited to examine the perversity in the order or jurisdictional error or the order suffers from patent illegality or vice of arbitrariness, which leads to injustice. The fundamental object and purpose of exercising supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court is to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds and parameters of law. It would not be out of place to refer the oft-quoted and landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [2001 (8) SCC 97], wherein the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been explained as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (Emphasis Supplied)

(6 of 6) [CW-10222/2026] The ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber (Supra), has been affirmed and reiterated recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu [2026 SCC OnLine (SC) 745], and in Para No.31, following observations have been made:- “31. The scope and ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of consideration before this Court in several judgments, and the law governing of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court, nor can it sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by courts and tribunals over which it exercise the power of superintendence under Article 227.”

12. As a final result, this Court does not find the present case a fit case to grant indulgence in the impugned order dated 30.05.2026 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, however, it is hereby observed that any sale or transaction of the lands in question, during pendency of the civil suit, shall be governed by the principle of lis pendens as enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

13. With the aforesaid observations, but without interfering with the impugned order dated 30.05.2026, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Accordingly, the ex-parte interim stay order dated 09.06.2026 stands vacated.

14. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 72/RONAK JAIMAN