LAWS(ORI)-1984-7-2

GOPAL CHANDRA Vs. L I C OF INDIA

Decided On July 31, 1984
GOPAL CHANDRA Appellant
V/S
L.I.C.OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is from the order passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, rejecting the plaintiff's petition under O.6, R.17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 95 of 1977 against the defendant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India for permanent injunction to restrain it from making further constructions of projections and cornices, for mandatory injunction to remove those which have already been constructed and for screning or closure of windows and openings. The plaintiff has his double storied old residential building described in schedule 'A' of the plaint. The defendant has been constructing a multistoried building on schedule 'B' land of the plaint on the adjoining west of schedule 'A' property within the municipal area of Cuttack. According to the plaint averment, the defendant has violated different provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act and did not leave a space of more than 3 feet width on the eastern side of the wall of the building under construction at the base. Further, while constructing the upper storeys of the said building, the defendant made projections and constructed lavatories above them almost adjoining the plaintiffs wall on the western side completely covering the vacant space at the base. As a result, the old western wall of the plaintiffs building has been endangered, in so far as, rain water will fall thereon and cause serious damage to it which might ultimately collapse.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement categorically denied the plaint averments and inter alia asserted that prior to the construction of the new multistoried building on schedule 'B' land of the plaint, there existed an old building adjacent to the plaintiff's building. For construction of the multistoried building the old building was demolished except the old eastern wall there adjacent to the plaintiff's western wall of the building. That being the position, there is absolutely no danger to the plaintiff's western wall being soaked and damaged by rain water or otherwise.