SOHAN LAL Vs. SRI POORAN CHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for respondent no.2. The petitioner before this Court had filed a suit being suit no. 86 of 2012 before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun against respondent no.1/defendant for permanent injunction in which Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun was also one of the defendants. The trial court had granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner without issuing notices to the defendants/respondents on 28.2.2012. Subsequently, defendant no.1 had put in appearance and filed an application for vacating the said temporary injunction. The said temporary injunction was modified by the trial court on 5.3.2012.

(2.) ALL the same, on an application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner for recalling the order dated 5.3.2012, the trial court had recalled the order dated 5.3.2012 and directed that the order dated 28.2.2012 shall remain effective. The present position is that there is an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT no.1 who is being represented by Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal has though expressed apprehension that this application of the plaintiff/petitioner is only a dilatory tactics in order to linger on the suit as there is already a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Moreover, he submits that a huge amount has already been invested and he would be running a financial loss in case the construction is delayed any further.