HARJIT SINGH Vs. JASVINDER PAL SINGH SODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dharmendra Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3. Counter affidavit filed today be kept on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to file any rejoinder affidavit. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the opposite party No.3 allowing the plaintiff-opposite party's application 6-Ga filed in Regular Suit No.409 of 2007 whereby it has been provided that the defendant-petitioner shall maintain status quo in respect of four fit wide passage and the order dated 28.03.2009 passed by the opposite party No.2 by which appeal preferred by the defendant-petitioner against the order of the opposite party No.3 has been rejected. Submission is that in the garb of the temporary injunction order the plaintiff-opposite party is not permitting the petitioner to park his Maruti vehicle in the vacant land abutting the four fit wide passage in the premises where the petitioner and opposite party No.1 are residing and where the petitioner has been parking his vehicle since the year 1994. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has submitted that apart from the four fit wide passage, no other vacant land is available in the premises where the defendant-petitioner can park his vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuting the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is sufficient vacant space available for parking his Maruti vehicle after leaving the four fit wide passage. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The respondent No.3 by his order dated 20.02.2008 has merely directed the defendant-petitioner to maintain status quo in respect of four fit wide passage. This Court is of the opinion that if there is sufficient open space available after leaving four fit wide passage in the premises in dispute, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be allowed to park his vehicle in the said vacant space. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that the trial court, opposite party No.3, shall make every possible endeavour to decide the Regular Suit No.409 of 2007 finally within a period of three months from today and for a period of three months or till the suit is decided, the temporary injunction granted by the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, shall remain in force. However, it is provided that in case, there is any vacant space available in the premises in question after leaving the four fit wide passage in respect of which the temporary injunction has been granted, the petitioner shall be permitted to park his Maruti vehicle in the said vacant space.