MURARILAL RAMSWARUP Vs. BABUSINGH KANHAISINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI K. L. Mangal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Mangal is heard. The petitioner figures as a defendant in a suit filed by Babu Singh. As per the petitioner suit has been filed seeking declaration and injunction. In that, an application was filed by the present petitioner. He submitted:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order in terms of Order 39, Rule (7) can be granted with a view to preserve the property. According to him, the term property includes movable and immovable property. In this connection, reference be made to Ram Swamp v. Mst. Kesar, AIR 1958 Rajasthan 218.

(3.) I am of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner for making repairs in the room in which he is staying would be covered by Order 39, Rule (7), Civil Procedure Code, but so far as the prayer for construction of the latrine is concerned that would not be covered by the aforementioned provisions. The petitioner occupied the premises with open eyes knowing fully well the accommodation which was subject-matter of the suit. The tenant is not within his rights to make any alteration in the same. As such, the Court below would reconsider the matter and pass fresh order vis-a-vis the need to repair the roof where the petitioner is staying. So far as the prayer for construction of a latrine is concerned, that is obviously beyond the scope of Order 39, Rule (7), Civil Procedure Code. This prayer has been rightly declined by the Court below. The petitioner may avail any other remedy available to him for the relief of raising construction of a toilet. The petitioner would produce the copy of this order before the Court below. The Court below would pass fresh order in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. C. C. today.