NARAIN DATT Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 19-2-1974 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Shri H. K. S. Malik) restraining the petitioner from running a cinema pending disposal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents (other than the Delhi Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called the M.C.D.) for mandatory injunction restraining the petitioner from constructing the cinema building on the suit property situate in the revenue estate in Raj Block Navin Shahdara Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. The trial court, however, declined to grant such an injunction pending the suit.

(2.) There have been further affidavits and counter-affidavits filed by the parties during the pendency of this petition in this Court concerning some events subsequent to the filing of the plaint. It seems, therefore, convenient to state the position as it emerges not only from the pleadings before the trial court (including the application for an injunction, the reply thereto and the still further reply of the plaintiffs), but also on the basis of the affidavits and counter-affidavits filed in this Court .

(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that the present petitioner acquired on lease 'the plot of land in question on 21-11-1961. It is common ground that in the adjoining plot there has been the Radhu cinema. The plaintiffs had admittedly purchased the plots nearby between the years 1965 1973, i.e. after the petitioner had applied for sanction to construct the cinema and when the Radhu cinema was running next to the now completed building put up by the petitioner. On 25-1-1962 the petitioner applied to the M.C.D. for sanction of the building plans of the cinema on the said plot. The said application for sanction seems to have had a chequered career. It appears to have been refused by a certain officer of the M.C.D. on 16-3-1962 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Municipal Engineer of the M.C.D. who also rejected the appeal. It is alleged that the petitioner filed a second appeal to the Commissioner who accepted the appeal. The petitioner claims that the plans were duly sanctioned and that they were sent to the petitioner along with the letter of sanction (No. 641/A dated 15-1-1963).