KAUSHIK KUMAR GANESHMAL Vs. SUNILKUMAR LAKHPATRAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Appeal from Order has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code by the appellants herein original plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24. 07. 2009 passed by the learned Aux. Chamber Judge, City Civil Court No. 14, Ahmedabad below Notice of Motion Exh. 7 in Civil Suit No. 1664 of 2006, by which the learned Chamber Judge has dismissed the Notice of Motion and vacated ex-parte ad interim injunction granted earlier by which respondents herein original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from renovation, repairing 2nd floor occupied and owned by them.

(2.) MR. PANDYA, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. R. B. Dave, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the learned Chamber Judge has committed error in vacating ex-parte ad interim relief and not restraining original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from repairing / renovating 2nd floor occupied by them as same is likely to cause damage to the appellant's property which is on 1st floor. It is submitted that there is structural report of the Engineer dated 21. 08. 2006 produced by the appellants herein original plaintiffs pointing out that looking to the poor condition of the building, the building it is not in a position to bear additional burden. It is submitted that even permission granted by the Municipal Corporation permitting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to renovate / repair 2nd floor occupied by the defendants, it is specifically mentioned that for any damage and/or consequence the Corporation will not be responsible. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has materially erred in vacating ex-parte ad interim relief and dismissing Notice of Motion.

(3.) PRESENT Appeal from Order is opposed by Mr. Bhate, learned Advocate appearing for defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are putting up construction / carrying out the renovation and repairing work after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation and without any extra additional load. It is submitted that the learned Chamber Judge has also considered Engineer's report produced by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and has specifically found that by alleged addition, alteration repairing and renovation work, no extra load will be created on the premises. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss present Appeal from Order.