RABINDRA NATH MAJUMDAR Vs. GANESH NATH MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.27 dated 06.01.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.200 of 2007 thereby dismissing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the applicant.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that the applicant instituted a title suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the opposite party nos.1 & 2 in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. In that suit, the applicant prayed for temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties from causing, interfering or obstructing to the plaintiff's erectional work in the suit property on the strength of his sanctioned building plan. That prayer was allowed but the opposite party nos.1 & 2 were creating obstruction against the construction of the boundary wall by the applicant. So he sought for police help which was refused by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiff/applicant.

(3.) Mr. Das, appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the plaintiff purchased the suit property for his residential purpose and he constructed house thereon for the said purpose. He was able to raise boundary wall on the three sides, namely, East, South and North. But, when the plaintiff started construction of the wall towards the western side, the opposite party nos.1 & 2 raised objection not to construct any wall, although the plaintiff did not encroach any portion of the area of the opposite party nos.1 & 2. So the learned Trial Judge should have granted the prayer for intervention by police so that the boundary wall could be constructed. He also submits that the learned Trial Judge did not allow the prayer for police help on the ground that when there is a specific provision to adjudicate over the said matter an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. does not lie. Moreover, there is no material before the Court that actually any violation has been committed. The learned Trial Judge has also held that there is no merit in the application. It is not proper because the learned Trial Judge has passed the order of injunction.