ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SABITRI DEBI AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 13/11/2002, passed by learned Additional District Judge/(Ad hoc) No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati,1n Misc, Appeal No.9 of 2001, allowing the appeal and granting injunction by setting aside the order, dated 19/3/2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) No.3, Guwahati, in Misc Case No.52 of 1999, arising out of Title Suit No. 153/99, whereby the learned trial court had declined to make absolute the order of temporary injunction earlier granted in favour of the plaintiffs- opposite party.

(2.) In a narrow compass, the material facts and various stages, which have led to the present revision, may be set out us follows: (i) The plaintiffs-opposite party instituted Title Suit No. 153/99 aforementioned, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (that is the revision petitioners) their employees, etc, from using the front space of their building, located on the eastern side, by parking car or other vehicles, the case of the plaintiffs being, briefly stated, thus : The plaintiffs have constructed a multistoried building on their land having 21 numbers of ownership flats. Out of these flats, 18 numbers of flats, located on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floors of the said building, known as Shiv Apartments, were sold out to the defendants company for use and occupation of their employees. As per the map, which is approved by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, provision for car parking had been made on the southern side of the building. Upon taking possession of the flats, the employees of the defendants started residing in the said flats and used to park their cars on the southern side of the building given to them as a parking place. After some months, the relation between the plaintiffs, who have been in occupation of two numbers of flats in the same building, and the employees of the defendants became Strained and they started harassing the plaintiffs, which led to the institution of several suits. Thereafter, the defendants and their employees have started parking their vehicles in front of the building, that is on the eastern side of the building causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the suit. (ii) Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiffs made an application under order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, etc., from parking their vehicles on the front side of the said building, and it is this application, which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 52/99. Learned trial court, initially passed an interim order of temporary injunction as had been prayed for by the plaintiffs. (iii) The defendants contested the suit and also the prayer for injunction, their case being, thus : The plaintiffs have no locus stand/ to file their petition as all the owners have not been made party and no injunction should be granted against the defendants inasmuch as the defendants are co-owners and have equal rights over the land and they have the right to park their vehicles at the vacant portion of the space inasmuch as the defendants have purchased 45% share of the land along with 18 numbers of flats. As the land is undivided, the opposite party have joint rights, title over and interest the entire 3 Kathas of the land. If temporary injunction is granted, as prayed for, the opposite party will suffer irreparable loss.

(3.) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court passed the order, dated 19.3.2001, aforementioned, vacating the ad Interim temporary injunction and rejected the prayer for granting injunction. The learned appellate court, as indicated hereinabove, set aside the order, dated 19.3.2001, aforementioned and made absolute the ad interim order of injunction. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have approached this Court in revision.