NARENDRABHAI RANJITBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. MADHUBEN UTTAMBHAI VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure is to the order dtd. 13/4/2023, passed below Exh.6/7 in Civil Suit No.28 of 2021, by which Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, was pleased to reject the prayer of the ad interim injunction, in relation to the suit property.

(2.) This appeal is filed by the appellant original plaintiff. He has filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, with respect to the two rooms, namely, Room No.453 and 454, inter alia alleging that the defendants without any right, title or interest, illegally encroach upon the suit property, which is ancestral property and he being a co-sharer, has right to protect the interest in the property. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property jointly purchased by his father and uncle and after sad demise of his father and uncle, he and others became co-owners of the property. It is further averred in the plaint that in 2001, his father, on humanitarian ground, permitted the defendants to occupy and use room Nos.455 and after passage of time the defendants have encroached upon the Room No.453 and 454 and illegally occupied the property without any consent or permission. It is further averred that without any right, title or interest in the suit rooms the defendants recently started illegal construction and despite being cautioned them not to construct further, they did not heed their request and continued with the illegal construction. In the aforesaid facts the suit for declaration and injunction is being filed with a prayer that the defendants be declared as tress-passers and they have no authority or right, title or interest to occupy the said rooms and by permanent injunction, they may be directed to vacate suit rooms and further be restrained them not to transfer or alienate the suit rooms to third party. Along with the suit, notice of motion was taken out. The Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, after hearing the parties, rejected the prayer of interim injunction and while rejecting the same observed that the plaintiffs failed to prove their prima facie case in balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not also in their favour.

(3.) Being and dissatisfied with the rejection of interim injunction application, the original plaintiff appellant has preferred this appeal,