BARFI BAI Vs. SAVITRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein had obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for construction of a building which consisted of ground floor plus two floors bearing permit number 318/40 dated 31-3-1992. The respondent herein started construction violating the terms and conditions contained in the permit referred to above. The petitioner herein is a neighbour of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 1509 of 1992 in the Court of the II Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration and injunction and also for mandatory injunction to pull down the structure, which was constructed unauthorisedly by the respondent herein. The petitioner herein also filed I.A.No. 1723 of 1992 in the same suit seeking interim relief. The said I.A., was ordered ex parte on 16-4-1992 and ad interim injunction was granted. On appearance of the respondent herein in that suit, the orders passed ex parte earlier in I.A.No. 1723 of 1992 was made absolute on 15-9-1992. However, the respondent herein was permitted to construct the building leaving 11 feet space towards the side of the petitioner herein as per the sanctioned plan. The respondent herein was aggrieved by the said order. Therefore, the respondent herein filed C.M.A.No. 286 of 1992 in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said C.M.A., was allowed on 3-11-1992 on the ground that the ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. were not established. The petitioner herein was aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad arid therefore thepetitioner preferred C.R.P. No. 3600 of 1992 in the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The petitioner also filed C.M.P.No. 18646 of 1992 for interim relief. The said CMP., was ordered on 9-10-1992 and the order of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was suspended by this Court. The respondent appeared in the said C.R.P., and filed C.M.P. No. 19094/92 to vacate the interim order of suspension. Subsequently i.e., on 19-11-1992 the respondent herein gave an undertaking to this Court to the effect that the respondent would make construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan leaving 11 ft. open space towards the side of the petitioner and therefore C.R.F.No. 3600/1992 was disposed of by recording the undertaking given by the respondent.

(2.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent did not complywith the undertaking but filed a petition on 19-4-1993 for clarification. The said petition was numbered as C.M.P.No. 11060/93. This Court by an order dated 20-7-1993 dismissed the above CM.P., on the ground that the undertaking given by the respondent herein was itself self-explanatory and therefore no further clarification was required. The respondent went on making construction. The respondent again filed C.M.P.No. 13383 of 1993 in C.R.P.NO. 3600 of 1992 to sot aside the previous order in which the respondent herein had given undertaking. The saidC.M.P.No.13383 of 1993 was dismissed by this Court. The respondent herein went on making constructions in violation of undertaking and in violation of the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Therefore the petitioner herein filed C.C.No. 563 of 1993 against the respondent herein. In the aforesaid C.C., this Court appointed one Municipal Engineer as a Court Commissioner to inspect the site and to file the report. The Commissioner visited the site in the presence of both the parties and prepared a report giving all violations made by the respondent herein including the violation of not leaving ll ft. open space towards the side of the house of the petitioner,

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner herein that in the contempt case, the respondent herein filed an affidavit stating that all the old structures existing towards the side of the petitioner herein were demolished and hence the Contempt Case was closed by this Court.