RAJIV TRADERS PVT LTD Vs. ASHABEN ROHITBHAI MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.399/2005. It is the case of the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit that plaintiff is a private limited company and it owns Final Plot Nos.614/A and 607 paiki situated in Navrangpura area of Ahmedabad city. To carry out the object of the company, the plaintiff company has given said land owned by it to one Shri N.H.Kapadia Education Trust. Said trust has constructed a school building on the said land and is running one of the prominent schools of Ahmedabad city and at present more than 3,000 students starting from nursery upto standard 12 are studying in said school in English and Gujarati medium. It is also the case of the plaintiff that to reach at the land owned by the plaintiff company, i.e., to reach at the school, approach road is identified as Final Plot No.613, consisting of 30 ft. wide road. It is a private road and the owners of Final Plot No.612 and the plaintiff holding Final Plot No.614 paiki and 607 paiki have the right to ingress and egress. However, by a document dated 3/3/2005, the owners of Final Plot no.612 being the owner of Final Plot No.613 has transferred his right in said Final Plot no.613 to the present plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the owner of Final Plot no.612 and 614, i.e., defendant nos.1 to 3 have their independent gates on the main road, through which the vehicles and other day to day utility is being done. A small gate has been installed on the sides of Final Plot no.613, however, said gates are not in use and it remains closed. It is also the case of the plaintiff that it has acquired 10 ft. road from main C.G.Road till its boundary with the land owner of Final Plot No.614, i.e., defendants no.1 to 3. It is also the case of the plaintiff that 10 ft. road acquired is identified in the map annexed in the list with red boarder. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendants no.1 to 3 have agreed to sell Final Plot No.614 paiki to one Bakery Group of Builders and they have planned to construct high -rise commercial building. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff do not have any other way for ingress and egress to its plot. On this and other such grounds aforesaid suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) IN the aforesaid suit, an application for interim injunction was pressed into service with a prayer that defendants no.1 to 3 be restrained from using the property bearing Final Plot no.613 as approach road to the commercial building on proposed Final Plot no.612 and 614 paiki and that defendants no.1 and 3 may be restrained from using the property bearing Final Plot no.612 and 614 paiki. It is also prayed that defendants no.1 to 3 may be restrained from demolishing the wall in question.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, learned trial Judge has dismissed injunction application vide his order dated 22 -6 -2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, original plaintiff has preferred this Appeal from Order.