Rajasthan High Court
CW/9237/2025 of SHRI OWAIS NURI Vs SMT. RAFAT BEGUM W/O SHRI SULTANUDEEN QURESHI on 29 June 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9237/2025 1. Shri Owais Nuri, Aged About 54 Years, S/o Shri Mohammad Shakir Nuri 2. Shri Shoaib Nuri, Aged About 52 Years, S/o Shri Mohammad Shakir Nuri 3. Mrs. Isharat Nuri, Aged About 79 Years, W/o Shri Mohammad Sakir Nuri
[2026:RJ-JP:23676]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9237/2025
1.
Shri Owais Nuri, Aged About 54 Years, S/o Shri Mohammad Shakir Nuri
2.
Shri Shoaib Nuri, Aged About 52 Years, S/o Shri Mohammad Shakir Nuri
3.
Mrs. Isharat Nuri, Aged About 79 Years, W/o Shri Mohammad Sakir Nuri
4.
Mrs. Nagma Nuri D/o Shri Mohammad Shakir Nuri W/o Shri Sayad Umer, Aged About 48 Years, All R/o 22, Nuri Villa, Plot No. 22, Dargah Street, Mahim, West Mumbai-400016 (Petitioner No. 2 to 4 Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Owais Nuri S/o Shri Mohammad Shakir Nuri, Aged About 54 Years R/o 22, Nuri Villa, Plot No. 22, Dargah Street, Mahim, West Mumbai-400016)
----Petitioners
Versus
1.
Smt. Rafat Begum W/o Shri Sultanudeen Qureshi, Aged About 85 Years, R/o House No. 78, Nuri Manjil, Chippa Mohalla, Bada Bas, Beawar (Raj.).
2.
Shri Vikas Chauhan S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Chauhan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Gopalji Mohalla, Ganga Mai Mandir, Beawar (Raj.).
3.
Shri Mukim Ali S/o Shri Sadik Ali, R/o Near Gandhi Vachnalaya, Chippo Ka Mohalla, New City, Kishangarh (Raj.)
4.
The Sub Registrar, Beawar (Raj.).
5.
The District Collector, Beawar (Raj.).
6.
Municipal Council, Beawar Through Commissioner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. J.K. Moolchandani
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
29/06/2026
1. A prayer for ad interim injunction, during course of hearing of the application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39
[2026:RJ-JP:23676] (2 of 2) [CW-9237/2025] Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected by the Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer vide order dated 23.01.2025 whereagainst petitioners/defendants have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Counsel for petitioners, on account of the fact that after declining the ad interim stay order, more than one and half year has passed, makes a prayer that the main application for temporary injunction be directed to be decided finally on merits without being influenced by declining the ad interim injunction in favour of petitioners by order impugned.
3. Taking into consideration the limited prayer of counsel for petitioners, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, instant writ petition stands disposed of with observations that if the pleadings of application for temporary injunction have completed, the trial Court shall expedite its hearing and make an endeavor to decide the same earliest possible, without being influenced by denial of ad interim stay order in favour of petitioners.
4. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 10/NITIN