PRAFULLCHANDRA Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/defendant, whose application for dismissal of suit on preliminary ground was rejected, has come in revision.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are as under - Initially the plaintiffs/non-applicants had instituted a civil suit No.634 of 1992, alleging that defendant no.1 is making construction of a building on the adjoining plot and the said construction is in contravention of the provisions of the Municipal Law. It is contended that even though the plaintiff objected to the said construction, the defendant did not pay any heed. It is further contended that after filing of the suit also the defendant continued to carry out the said construction and, therefore, the plaintiff seeks injunction. In that suit, an application was filed contending that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit was, therefore, dismissed in view of the decision reported in A.I.R.1993 Bombay 151 (Ms Vora Automotives ..vs.. Gopalrao Pohre).

(3.) The plaintiff subsequently instituted present suit bearing No.711 of 2000. The plaintiff made same allegations as are made in the earlier suit but contended that the decision in A.I.R.1993 Bombay 151 (M/s Vora Automotive Ltd..vs.. Gopalrao Pohre) has been set aside in a case reported in 2000 (3) Mh.L.J. 624 (Fatima ..vs.. Village Panchayat of Merces). It is contended that the defendant has completed the construction but same is liable to be removed.