RAJESHBHAI MAHESHBHAI JARIWALA Vs. MAHESHBHAI NATVARBHAI JARIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31.12.2015 passed below Exh.21 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.10 of 2014 by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Surat, whereby the learned trial Judge confirmed the order dated 31.12.2013 passed below Exh.5 injunction application in Regular Civil Suit No.398 of 2011 by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat.

(2.) Heard the submissions made by learned advocate Ms.Venu H. Nanavaty appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.N.M.Kapadia, appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that property bearing flat No.403, 2/4355, Sai Leela Apartment, Sangrampura, Surat is purchased from one Mr.Chandrakant Vasantlal Jariwala for which consideration was paid by the respondent No.1 from the sale of the ancestral property and also personal savings of the petitioner and since the year 2002, the petitioner and respondents were family members, occupying the said premises jointly. It is a matter of fact that said property came to be registered in the name of respondent No.2 in the year 2008. It appears that in the year 2003, the respondent No.1 herein executed one letter of authority in the name of petitioner, authorizing the petitioner to deal with the said property in relation to any matter relating to the said property. But on 20.08.2010, the petitioner was forcefully tried to throw the petitioner and his family members from the said property and it appears that thereafter, verbal quarrel occurred followed by physical assault on the petitioner and his family members and due to this the petitioner filed police complained on the same day. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was paying his share of expenses relating to electricity, gas, maintenance etc. and since the respondents did not clear the electricity and gas connection bills, both the electricity and gas supply were disconnected by respective authorities. Though, the petitioner approached the respective authorities, requesting to re -connect both the services, but the same refused on the ground that without consent of the person in whose name the said property stands, such services cannot be restored/re -connected. As the respondents refused to accord to consent for the same, the petitioner was constrained to file Regular Civil Suit No.398 of 2011 alongwith injunction application Exh.5 for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to accord sanction to re - connect/restore the said services at petitioner's cost and further restraining the respondents from interfering with the usage of the said services pending trial of the suit.