CHANDU RAM Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. No. 3569-C of 1984 The appellants moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for additional evidence by way of production of certified copy of the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1864 of 1984 decided on 20.9.1984.

(2.) IT has been averred in the application that the evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence is necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case as the property in dispute in civil suit was the same which is subject matter of the present suit. As the evidence sought to be produced by way of judgment of this Court passed inter se between the parties and is necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, the C.M. is allowed. The copy of the judgment passed by this Court is taken on record as Ex."A".

(3.) THE plaintiff appellants filed a suit by claiming that they were owner of the disputed house having purchased plot by way of sale deed dated 15.5.1973 and thereafter they constructed the said house on the said plot in the year 1974. It was claimed that no new construction was raised thereafter. The construction was said to be in accordance to the Building Bye Laws and further that no encroachment had been made on the Municipal Land or any other land by the plaintiff appellants. It was claimed that due to reason of enmity of some persons with the plaintiffs, a notice under Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 was got issued to the plaintiffs alleging that they have made unauthorised construction. It was claimed that the allegations in the notice were against facts. The impugned notices issued by the Municipal Committee were illegal, void, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside on the ground that the plaintiff appellants were not the only owners of the disputed house and, therefore, the notices were required to be issued to all the owners. It was claimed that notices were not issued under the orders of the competent authority and it was reasserted that as the construction was made in the year 1974, the Municipal Committee had no right to issue any such notice. The notice was said to be vague. The right of the defendant respondent to demolish the house was also challenged.