NILADRI MONDAL Vs. ARINDAM BAKSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been directed against the order dated 27th January, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Durgapur, District Burdwan in Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2005, whereby the order No. 15 dated 2nd September, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, (Junior Division), 1st Court, at Durgapur, District Burdwan in Title Suit No. 75 of 2005 was affirmed.

(2.) Alleging that the opposite party No. 1 had started making construction on the boundary line of 'A' & 'B' scheduled suit properties, causing interference in and obstruction to the light and air to the suit premises, the petitioners filed the suit for declaration and injunction with a prayer for an order restraining the opposite party No. 1 from making any construction therein. The petitioner also filed a separate application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C. P. C. for temporary injunction. Acting on the report of the commissioner and having regard to the balance of inconvenience, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Durgapur was pleased to reject the application for temporary injunction. The order was challenged in appeal. In disposing of the Misc. Appeal being 18 of 2005, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Court below in Title Suit No. 75 of 2005. The present writ application has been filed, challenging the order passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. R. N. Mahato has submitted that the opposite party No. 1 sought to capitalize on the building plan which was issued in gross violation of the provision of the Durgapur Building Plan Regulation (Bye Law) of Durgapur. Referring to the Rules 44 (ii), Mr. Mahato has submitted that every building is required to have the rear set back of 3. 05 meters at all points and as per Sub-Rule 1, there must be set back of 1.22 meters on the front. The Municipal Authority, it is argued, had no authority to allow sanction of construction of the building on the boundary line, ignoring its own Rules.