SURESH KR DHANUKA Vs. KEDAR NATH DHANUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the legality of the order, dated 18.12.99, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divn) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Misc Appeal No. 5/99, which was directed against the order, dated 17.12.98, passed in Misc (J) Case No. 280/98, arising out of Title Suit No. 252/98, by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) No. 1, Guwahati, the plaintiff- petitioner has approached this Court with the present application for revision made under Section 115 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to this revision are as follows: An application, seeking interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, was made by the plaintiffin TS 252/98. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn) No.1 Guwahati, upon considering the objection raised by the defendant and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed an order of injunction, on 17.12.98, directing the plaintiff- petitioner to take steps within 60 days along with the opposite party No. 1 for demolition of his half portion of the building "by cutting pillar-joists and his sides pillars". Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff preferred Mise Appeal No. 5/99 aforementioned under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 3 Kamrup, Guwahati, vide the order, dated 18.12.99, partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the order, dated 17.12.98, aforementioned, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn) No. 1, Guwahati, and directed the defendants-respondents to ensure safety of the portion of the house of the plaintiff- appellant to take all necessary precaution to see that no damage was caused to the said portion and no inconvenience was caused to the appellant due to the new construction of the building over the portion of the land of the defendants-respondents. It is this appellate order, dated 18.12.99, which stands impugned in the present revision.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for respondents.