HARISH KUMAR Vs. MINTA ENGG WORK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant-Harish Kumar from raising any construction in the portion of the property shown red in the plan, stated to be a part and parcel of 110 feet wide Sodal Saipur Road situated in the Industrial Area, Jalandhar City. Plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of temporary injunction, Trial Court on a consideration of the matter, by its order dated 20. 8. 1994 directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the existing construction at the site, regarding the property in dispute detailed in the head note of the plaint. Defendant No. 1 felt aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court and consequently filed appeal which was assigned to the Court of Shri A. K. Sharma, Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar. Learned Addl. District Judge, by his order dated 3. 2. 1995 finding no merit in the appeal dismissed the same. Hence this revision at the instance of defendant-petitioner.

(2.) AT the time of hearing of this revision petition, Mrs. (Dr.) Sarojnei Saksena, J. came to pass the following order on 19. 7. 1996 :

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I see no ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Tehsildar, Jalandhar in the matter of carrying out measurement at the site. Objections to the report have also not been filed though a period of one year has passed. I thus accept this report. Thus there remains no doubt that the petitioner Harish Kumar has not encroached upon any portion of the property as alleged by plaintiff-respondents. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the Courts below directing the parties to maintain status quo are vacated. The revision petition is allowed as indicted above and plaintiffs' application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. However, anything said herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy raised in the suit.