RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION B-5 BLOCK, PASCHIM V Vs. RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION B-2 BLOCK, PASCHIM V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this regular second appeal is to the judgment of the first appellate court dated 15.7.2013, by which the first appellate court accepted the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment of the trial court dated 31.8.2012 decreeing the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction for removal of the pillars on the public road.

(2.) The first appellate court allowed the appeal of the defendants inasmuch as the private pillars which were fixed by the defendants in the trial court, and who were the appellants before the first appellate court, were stood removed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Thereafter, the MCD itself had fixed ballasts/pillars on the road inasmuch as, MCD had the necessary powers under Section 325(1)(c) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The ballasts/barriers were fixed because the road was only 10 ft. wide and not suitable for heavy vehicular traffic. The effect of fixing of the ballasts is that road continues to remain open but not for heavy vehicular traffic.

(3.) Before me, counsel for the appellants, and who were the plaintiffs in the trial court, argues that MCD if it had fixed the ballasts should have followed the due procedure of law as specified under the Delhi Municipal Act including under Section 325 but the ballasts were fixed without following the due procedure.