MUNICIPALITY PATIALA THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ADMINISTRATOR AND ANOTHER Vs. VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent Vijay Bahadur Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Committee, Patiala (defendant Petitioner) and others for injunction restraining them to interfere in his possession over the property described in red colour in the site plan, marked X as he has been the owner in possession of the same for the last more than 30 years and using the same as his residential house. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit was also filed. In that application the Trial Court granted injunction partially i.e. not to interfere in the constructed area of the house but with regard to the remaining un built area regarding which a scheme had been prepared by the Municipal Committee, the injunction was declined.

(2.) Aggrieved against that order, the plaintiff respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, Patiala, who vide his order dated 7.9.1989 accepted the appeal and modified the order of the Trial Court thereby granting temporary injunction as had been prayed for by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) The Appellate Court granted the injunction saying that if the Municipal Committee is allowed to construct the roads on the lawns and the vacant site in front of the house during the pendency of the suit, then the valuable right of the plaintiff- respondent would be defeated. Regarding the open space immediately appurtenant to his residential house, the appellate Court took into account the prima facie case, balance of convenience and the loss to be caused to the plaintiff in case injunction is not granted to him. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. It further came to the conclusion that the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss if the scheme prepared by the Municipal Committee is allowed to be completed by permitting them to construct roads on the un built area during the pendency of the suit because the scheme regarding the un built area is the moot point in the suit, I find no infirmity in the order of the appellate Court and the same is hereby affirmed and the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that plaintiff-respondent be restrained from making any construction over the vacant land during the pendency of suit. The prayer of the counsel is reasonable. The plaintiff-respondent is restrained from making any construction over the vacant land in dispute during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit at its earliest and preferably within six months. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.11.1990. Revision petition allowed.