SOMNATH Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.8.1991 passed by II Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar whereby he directed the petitioner to demolish to construction raised by him during the pendency of the case.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed Suit No. 416 of 1991 in the Court of Munsif, Muzaffarnagar for permanent injunction against respondent No. 2 restraining him from interfering in the erection of a boundary wall around the piece of land alleged to be his Sahan. He alleged that he was owner in possession of the house and the disputed land was part of his Sahan land. The house of respondent No. 2 was situate towards south-east to his house. The respondent was trying to interfere with in the possession of his Sahan land. He wanted to raise boundary wall but the respondent resisted the petitioner and interfered in his construction work over the disputed land.

(3.) The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction and prayed that the defendant be restrained from interfering in the construction of the boundary wall which was being raised by him. On 12th July, 1991 the trial Court issued and interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the construction of the boundary wall by the plaintiff and also affixing two doors. The trial Court on 12.7.1991 granted ex parte injunction and restrained the defendant from interfering in the plaintiff's work of construction of boundary wall till 6.8.1991. The defendant respondent got information of the suit and of ad interim injunction order dated 12th July, 1991. He immediately filed appeal against the said order and also filed an application for stay. Learned District Judge stayed the operation of the order passed by the trial Court on 16th July, 1991. The respondent got the service of the notice affected on the petitioner through special messenger. He also filed an application for demolition of the construction on the allegation that the petitioner raised constructions during the pendency of the appeal in-spite of grant of stay by the appellate Court against the order of the trial Court on 16th July, 1991 and further prayed to maintain status quo ante as to keep the land in question in the same position as it was existing at the time of filing of the suit.