Full Text
Translation output
A-79
% 18.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ajay Kumar and Mr.Ajay Diwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Kumar, CGSC with Mr.Rajiv Mishra, Advocate for the respondent/UOI.
Ms.Saroj Vidawat, Advocate for the MCD.
-i-CM No.12831/2011 (for exemtion) in CM(M) No.815/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.815/2011
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
25.05.2011 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants claiming themselves to the owners of the suit land. On a prima facie consideration that the averments made in the plaint and keeping in view the law of injunction i.e. the balance of convenience as also irreparable harm and injury qua one party qua the other, the impugned order had noted that no such prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff entitling him to •a relief of interim injunction. Attention has been drawn to the report of the demarcation dated 25.1.2011 prepared by SDM; this reports also records that the measurement
2011:DHC:7826 as prayed by the plaintiff of the disputed land could not be done because of the dense population and the pucca point could not be located. The contention of the plaintiffs is that his documents have wrongly mentioned that the property of plaintiff no.1 falls in
Khasra No.52/4, property of plaintiff no.2 falls in Khasra No.53/9, property of plaintiff no.3 falls in Khasra No.49/23, property of plaintiff no.4 falls in Khasra No.3/9 and of plaintiff no.5 in Khasra
No.49/23. Demolition has been carried out by defendant no.1/MCD in portions of Khasra No.52/4 and 49/23. The impugned order has correctly noted that the question as to where the structure of the plaintiff falls and whether it is located in Khasra Nos.452/4 and
49/2 3 alone or any other khasras is a question of trial; it cannot be adjudicated on a prima facie finding from no infirmity. Dismissed.
The imp1gned order suffers
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 18, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:7826
% 18.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ajay Kumar and Mr.Ajay Diwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Kumar, CGSC with Mr.Rajiv Mishra, Advocate for the respondent/UOI.
Ms.Saroj Vidawat, Advocate for the MCD.
-i-CM No.12831/2011 (for exemtion) in CM(M) No.815/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.815/2011
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
25.05.2011 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants claiming themselves to the owners of the suit land. On a prima facie consideration that the averments made in the plaint and keeping in view the law of injunction i.e. the balance of convenience as also irreparable harm and injury qua one party qua the other, the impugned order had noted that no such prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff entitling him to •a relief of interim injunction. Attention has been drawn to the report of the demarcation dated 25.1.2011 prepared by SDM; this reports also records that the measurement
2011:DHC:7826 as prayed by the plaintiff of the disputed land could not be done because of the dense population and the pucca point could not be located. The contention of the plaintiffs is that his documents have wrongly mentioned that the property of plaintiff no.1 falls in
Khasra No.52/4, property of plaintiff no.2 falls in Khasra No.53/9, property of plaintiff no.3 falls in Khasra No.49/23, property of plaintiff no.4 falls in Khasra No.3/9 and of plaintiff no.5 in Khasra
No.49/23. Demolition has been carried out by defendant no.1/MCD in portions of Khasra No.52/4 and 49/23. The impugned order has correctly noted that the question as to where the structure of the plaintiff falls and whether it is located in Khasra Nos.452/4 and
49/2 3 alone or any other khasras is a question of trial; it cannot be adjudicated on a prima facie finding from no infirmity. Dismissed.
The imp1gned order suffers
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 18, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:7826
JUDGMENT