VIMLABEN HARKISHANBHAI KHATRI Vs. DHIRUBHAI BHANKIBHAI CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Shah appears for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 Society has not appeared though notice is served. The presence of respondent No. 3 is not required in view of the declaration made by Mr. Thakar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that respondent No. 4 has purchased the property from respondent No. 3. Mr. Thakar has appeared for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Dave for respondent No. 5. The advocates appearing for the concerned respondents waives service of Rule.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is an occupant of Tenement No. B-59 in respondent No. 2 Society (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") and respondent No. 1 is the occupant of Tenement No. B-64 and respondent No. 4 is occupant of Tenement No. B-63.

(3.) IT appears that the suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Nominee being Lavad Case No. 504/00 for restraining the society and the other occupants in laying down of the drainage line from AUDA and to prohibit the disturbance by any members of the Society. The nominee tried the suit and ultimately, passed the award and in the said award, the injunction has been granted restraining the Society and any other members if the drainage line is taken from Tenement No. B-59 and it was also observed that the plaintiff is entitled to take the drainage line from Tenement No. B-59. The matter was carried in the revision before the Tribunal and the Tribunal as per the order dated 02. 11. 2007, dismissed the appeal, but further clarified that if the plaintiff takes connection of drainage line from Tenement No. B-59, if any damage is caused to the property, the same shall be compensated by orig. plaintiff. It is against the said order of the Tribunal, the present petition by the petitioner who is occupant of Tenement No. B-59.