INDERJIT SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order, whereby, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved alongwith suit claiming permanent injunction for grant of ad interim injunction restraining defendant not to encroach upon the street to be a public has been dismissed by the trial Court and miscellaneous appeal preferred before the Lower Appellate Court also met with the same fate.

(2.) Mr. G.S.Sirphikhi, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that trial Court before adjudication of the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC granted the ad interim injunction which ultimately was not confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The miscellaneous appeal has erroneously been rejected, for, ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, i.e., prima facie balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss have been established through documents attached alongwith plaint. The Courts below failed to consider that defendant had purchased only 1? marla of land vide registered sale deed dated 06.05.1998 but the site plan was sanctioned in respect of 2 marlas of land which itself was sufficient material on the record enabling the Court to form an opinion in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff but having not adverted to the aforementioned document, there is illegality and perversity and thus, orders under challenge are without jurisdiction.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and appraised the paper book.