CHANDRA MOHAN BHANDARI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. M. Quddusi, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing of. the order dated 22-9-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1995 Chandra Mohan Bhandariv. Dr. PC. Whorra and others to the extent that he did not direct the parties to maintain the status quo ante or direct the defendants-respon dents 3 and 4 to reconstruct the separating wall as it existed during the pendency of application for temporary injunction before the trial Court or permit the petitioners to make necessary amendment in its pleadings to make an application for interim injunction as is necessary for a direction of raising of the supporting wall felled after the passing of the order dated 26-6-1995 passed by Munsiff Dehradun and to consider and decide the application aforesaid in accordance with law within such stipulated period as this Court may consider and deem necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of first floor of the property bearing the municipal number 57/3, Hardwar Road, Dehradun along with certain structures on the ground floor and a 10 feet wide open space abetting Hardwar Road. THE first floor of the property is supported by walls of the shops which are situated on the ground floor. THE petitioners No. 1 purchased the property in question from its earlier owner Shrimati Mayadevi through a registered sale deed. It is alleged that at the time of the execution of the sale deed Shrimati Mayadevi made it clear that the tenant or the owner of the shops on the ground floor will have no right to change the position of any wall of any shop. Petitioner No. 2is the attorney of petitioner No. 2. THE shops in question are owned by respondents 3 and 4. Possession of these shops was trans ferred by its owner the respondent No. 2 to them.

(3.) THE learned Munsiff Dehradun after considering the facts and circumstan ces of the case as well as the objections filed by the respondents 3 and 4 rejected the application 6-Ga vide her order dated 26th May, 1995 holding that prima facie no case for interim injunction is made out.