VIDYA WATI Vs. A N WANCHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by Mrs. Jaskirat Datwani through her attorney, Mr. Pradeep Sehgal, seeking for modification and/or review of the judgment/order dated 12.4.1996 passed by this court whereby this court accepted the suggestions of the Local Commissioner for construction of a 5 feet to 6 feet passage to be provided to the appellants in appeal from the main gate to the annexe after raising a brick wall or a perforated jali in order to protect the privacy of the inhabitants of the annexe and the main building.

(2.) The appellants in the appeal were legal representatives of the plaintiff and on the death of the original plaintiff they were substituted in place of the deceased plaintiffs. The aforesaid appellas filed the appeal against the order dated 2.2.1995 passed by the Single Judge vacating partially the ad interim injunction in respect to the lawn and the land attached to the annexe of 6, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal and after hearing the counsel for the parties the Division Bench of this court in the appeal came to the conclusion that a local commissioner should be appointed to visit the property, prepare a plan and also to take photographs of the annexe together with the land attached to it so that the court could get an idea of the topography of the property. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the local commissioner appointed submitted a report in respect to the topography of the land in dispute and also incorporating therein certain suggestions in respect of providing access to the annexe under occupation of the appellants in pursuance of specific directions of this court. The aforesaid suggestions made by the local commissioner in his report were found to be sound and reasonable and therefore, the said suggestions were accepted and the Division Bench directed that a 5 feet to 6 feet passage be provided to the appellants, as shown in the site plan annexed to the report, from the main gate to the annexe after raising a brick wall or a perforated jali in order to protect the privacy of the inhabitants of the annexe and the main building. It was also directed that the doors at points G, X, Y and Z of the aforesaid plan and the jalis which have barricaded the annexe be removed to provide access, air and light to the inhabitants of the annexe. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions the present application has been filed by the applicant.

(3.) It is necessary to mention at this stage that the applicant was neither a party in the suit nor impleaded herself in the appeal although she has stated in this application that she is in sole occupation of the main Kothi at 6, Friends Colony, New Delhi. The applicant has submitted that raising of the proposed wall as directed by this Court by judgment and order dated 12.4.1996 would adversely affect the enjoyment and occupation of the main house at 6, Friends Colony, New Delhi and also some of their servant quarters occupied by their servants inasmuch as the said proposed passage would have to be made on the land which is in occupation of the applicant and would also block the light and air of the applicant and her servant quarters. On perusal of the records we find that when the local commissioner inspected the site in pursuance of the order passed by this court for preparing his report in respect of the topography of the land in dispute the attorney of the applicant, Shri Pradeep Sehgal was present and his name finds mention in the report submitted by the Local Commissioner. Before the Local Commissioner, Shri Pradeep Sehgal represented himself to be the attorney of the respondents. The applicant herein, Mrs. Jaskirat Datwani, was not a party to the suit and did not take any steps to get herself impleaded even in the appeal although she is stated to be in occupation of the premises in question.