SWAPNIL NAHAR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') questioning the propriety of the order dated 15.10.2014 passed in M.J.C No.362/2014 whereby, the trial Court has rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff- Swapnil Nahar instituted a suit claiming declaration of title, injunction and for damages with regard to the property in question marked in red colour in Plaint Schedule 'd' with a prayer that the Defendant Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') be restrained from constructing a road on the said suit land and also for damages of Rs.80,000/- owing to illegal dismantlement of his boundary wall. It is pleaded by him that he purchased the land bearing Khasra No.1633/3 admeasuring 1590 sq.ft from one Rajesh Choubey under the registered deed of sale dated 17.01.2006 for a consideration of Rs.96,000/- and likewise, purchased the part of Khasra No.1633/2 admeasuing 3225 sq.ft from Shiv Kumar Gupta and Smt Usha Gupta under the registered deed of sale dated 04.02.2006 for a consideration of Rs.1,93,500/-, which was numbered as Khasra No.1633/8 upon its mutation and both of his lands are adjoining with each other. According to him, he constructed fencing walls on the southern-northern side and western side of his land and alleged further in the Plaint that the Corporation under the garb of constructing the road connecting Gauravpath chowk to Mangla chowk, Mungeli road, has damaged illegally the fencing walls of him. Therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature, along with an application under Section 151 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the Corporation from constructing the road on the suit land pending decision of the suit.

(3.) In reply to the aforesaid application, it is stated by the DefendantCorporation that since the eastern side of the boundary wall was raised illegally by the Plaintiff, the same was, therefore, dismantled and is not in existence. It is stated further that the alleged construction of boundary wall was found to be on the Government land bearing Khasra No.1552 as revealed from the demarcation of it made on 06.09.2013 in presence of the Plaintiff and other interested persons and therefore, not only the Plaintiff's illegal construction but the constructions of others were also removed and despite of knowing the alleged demarcation, it was never put in question by him and therefore, he is bound by the same. It is contended further that the entire work was being done in the Government land and the Plaintiff's application is therefore, liable to the rejected.