CHHAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL BENGLA BAZAR POST BHADRUKH LUCKNOW Vs. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GOMTI NAGAR LUCKNOW THROU, SECY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for appellant.

(2.) The instant second appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2017 passed in RCA No. 0000147/2016 (Chhaya Public School Bengla Bazar Post Bhadrukh District Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow through Secretary) and the judgment and decree dated 7.5.2016 passed in Regular Suit No. 766 of 2010 (Chhaya Public School Bengla Bazar Post Bhadrukh District Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow through Secretary) whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff against respondent-defendant was dismissed and the appeal filed before the lower appellate Court has also been dismissed on merit.

(3.) As per the given facts of the case, as borne out from the record, the appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that some persons claiming themselves to be the employees of Lucknow Development Authority had come to the plaintiff's school on 19.7.2010 and threatened the Manager of the School to leave the possession within one week otherwise the building would be demolished by JCB machine. The appellant-plaintiff feeling aggrieved filed a suit for permanent injunction. The respondent-defendant had initially appeared before the Trial Court but did not file any written statement and did not contest the case. The Trial Court had proceeded ex parte to decide the suit, however, in most arbitrary and illegal manner has dismissed the suit holding that no cause of action had arisen to the appellant-plaintiff. The appeal was filed thereafter before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has merely dittoed the findings of the Trial Court and has affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court without properly appreciating the contention raised by the appellant-plaintiff. It is submitted that even before the lower appellate Court the notice was served on the respondent, however, they did not appear and the lower appellate Court vide order dated 26.7.2013 had proceeded ex parte against the respondent.