KRISHAN Vs. SATBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 122 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 4834 of 2009

(2.) This is second appeal by defendant No. 1 Krishan.

(3.) Suit was filed by Nanku Ram (since deceased and represented by respondents No. 1 to 4) against Krishan appellant and Sant Lal (since deceased and represented by proforma respondents No. 5 to 7). The plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of house in front whereof there is private passage on eastern side, 5 feet in width, used only by plaintiff and his neighbours since time immemorial. There are other houses towards east of the said passage including house of defendants, but there is public street for those houses on their eastern side. There exists no door, window or other opening in the rear wall of those houses towards disputed private passage. The plaintiff accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from opening any door, window etc. in the disputed private passage. During pendency of the suit, defendant No. 2 opened a door in his house towards the disputed passage and therefore by amendment, relief of mandatory injunction was claimed for closing the said door.