KAMRUNNISHA Vs. ZUBEDA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred challenging the legality and propriety of order no. 96 dated 19.02.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Asansol in Misc. Case No. 19 of 2001 arising out of Title Suit No. 137 of 1998.

(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the plaintiff/ opposite party filed Title Suit No. 137 of 1998 for a declaration that he is the owner and in possession of the A schedule property and has easementary right over B schedule property which is part and parcel of A schedule property and that the defendant no. 1/ petitioner has no right, title and interest over the B schedule property save and except the easementary right. But they are trying to block the passage over the B schedule property by making a construction and blocking the window of the suit premises of the plaintiff. The defendant/ petitioner did not contest said suit after getting assurance from the plaintiff/ opposite parties that the same would be withdrawn but ultimately it proceeded ex parte and decreed on 19.04.1997 declaring the plaintiff/ opposite partys easementary right over the B schedule property as well as permanent injunction restraining the defendant/ petitioner from making any construction over the suit property and to remove the construction it made.

(3.) LEARNED lawyer for the plaintiff/ opposite party has contended that the petitioner/ defendant is intentionally dragging the matter without reasonable cause which will be reflected from her conduct and so the learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer which should not be interfered with.