Full Text
Translation output
A-38
% 22.09.2011
Present: Mr. Jai Kishan, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No. 17752/2011 (exemption) in CM ifM) No. 1109/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 1109/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
22.01.2011 vide which the Appellate Court had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge on the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure qua the defendant and interim rehef i.e. the user of the disputed toilet had been permitted to the plaintiff. The impugned order has correctly noted that the toilet was constructed in the premises of the plaintiff; this fact has not been denied; contention of the defendant all along was that it was a joint user of the toilet and was being maintained by the MCD; however, there was no dispute to the fact that the toilet had been constructed in the premises of the plaintiff. These were two concurrent findings of prima facie facts in favour of the non-applicant/plaintiff. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
At this stage, this court would like to mention that in fact no argument has been urged by the petitioner whatsoever.
Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 rb
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
- hccaili^-yoliQ-JxL dJi-JjJi-
2011:DHC:19497
% 22.09.2011
Present: Mr. Jai Kishan, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No. 17752/2011 (exemption) in CM ifM) No. 1109/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 1109/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
22.01.2011 vide which the Appellate Court had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge on the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure qua the defendant and interim rehef i.e. the user of the disputed toilet had been permitted to the plaintiff. The impugned order has correctly noted that the toilet was constructed in the premises of the plaintiff; this fact has not been denied; contention of the defendant all along was that it was a joint user of the toilet and was being maintained by the MCD; however, there was no dispute to the fact that the toilet had been constructed in the premises of the plaintiff. These were two concurrent findings of prima facie facts in favour of the non-applicant/plaintiff. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
At this stage, this court would like to mention that in fact no argument has been urged by the petitioner whatsoever.
Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 rb
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
- hccaili^-yoliQ-JxL dJi-JjJi-
2011:DHC:19497
JUDGMENT