LOKENDRA JAIN Vs. BANDIVIYA SAMACHAR PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 23.11.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 444-A/2010 by the 14th Additional District Judge, Bhopal.

(2.) The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction contending inter alia that on the plot No.17 of M.P. Nagar Zone No. 1, Bhopal, a lease was granted in favour of respondent/plaintiff on 16.07.1986 by the Bhopal Development Authority. However, there was some dispute on account of which earlier holders of the newspaper have seized their authority. The possession of the said plot and room constructed thereon was delivered to the respondent/plaintiff by the Bhopal Development Authority on 08.07.2010. After obtaining sanction from the Municipal Corporation, when the construction was started by the respondent/plaintiff obstruction was started by the appellant/defendant No.2, therefore, the suit was required to be filed. In the suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking temporary injunction against the appellant and other defendants. A reply to the said application was submitted by the appellant contending that the lease hold rights were given to the defendant No.1. After mutual partnership for construction of a residential-cum-commercial complex an agreement of Joint Venture was executed on 18.10.1995 by the appellant with the defendant/respondent No.2 herein. Pursuance to such agreement after receipt of the full consideration amount by the respondent No.2 herein the appellant became entitle to make construction. Illegally it was said that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has acquired the lease of the land in suit whereas mere change in the declaration made under the Press and Book Registration Act, no right is created in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. The other persons have also filed their reply.

(3.) The Civil Court considered the application of the respondent/plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction and came to the conclusion that prima facie case was in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, balance of convenience tilted in its favour and it would suffer irreparable loss in case the temporary injunction is not granted. After holding so, the Civil Court granted injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by the impugned order hence, this appeal is filed.