RATAN LALCHANDANI Vs. JAGRAN SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed in the Civil Suit No.632- A/2014 dated 08.08.2014, whereby application for grant of temporary injunction of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order passed in MCA No.169/2014 dated 28.08.2015, whereby the lower appellate Court has rejected the miscellaneous appeal of the petitioner preferred against the aforesaid order of the trial Court.

(2.) Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sold land ad-measuring 25 acres out of Khasra No.83/2, total area ad-measuring 30 acres by four registered sale deeds executed in September, 2008. The sale deeds were executed with the condition that the purchaser would permit the seller to use the approach road through the demised premises in order to approach the remaining land of the seller i.e. 5 acres along with other ancillary conditions for providing certain amenities for the purpose of sewerage and electricity connection. By placing reliance on Clause 15 of the sale deed, it is urged that the said clause establishes the easementary right created in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, along with the civil suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure-P/3) was filed.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the approach road should not be constructed because the petitioner failed to seek necessary permission within the stipulated time of one year. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 25.03.2011 regarding construction of approach road. The respondents gave them reply and said that Condition No.15 is without consideration and services are gratuous. Attention of this Court is drawn on the reply of the respondents, wherein it is mentioned that if necessary permissions are obtained from the Government departments, the respondents will provide the connecting services. He submits that the petitioner has failed to take necessary permission from the Government within the stipulated time. Hence, the Courts below have not committed any error of law. He also relied on condition No.17 of the sale deed which reads as under: