POONAM GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. OM PARKASH SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein instituted a civil suit against the petitioners herein claiming therein a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to suit property comprised in Khasra No. 135, measuring 594 sq.mt. located in mauza Thodo Solan. The defendants therein/who are petitioners herein in their written statement furnished thereto also espoused therein a counter claim with respect to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction being pronounced upon the respondent herein, for restraining him from interfering with their possession upon Khasra No. 2137/133 and Khasra No. 2136/133. Also both the petitioner(s) herein and the respondent herein respectively instituted applications before the learned trial Court "cast under" the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, wherein they sought an order of interim injunction being pronounced upon the other. Upon the aforesaid applications instituted before the learned trial Court, the latter proceeded to respectively pronounce order(s) therein "of" temporary ad-interim injunction whereby they respectively stood restrained "from" during the pendency of civil Suit No. 187/2015 and of Counter claim No. 252/1/15 "hence" interfering with their respective possession(s) upon Khasra No.135 and upon Khasra No. 2137/133 and Khasra No. 2136/133. Apparently, both the aforesaid khasra numbers are contiguously located. The counsel for the respondent herein contends, that the order of status qua pronounced upon his application "cast" under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, whereby the, petitioners herein stood restrained from interfering with his possession upon Khasra No. 2137/133 and 2136/133 "standing violated" by the petitioners herein, hence "for ventilating" his grievance(s) in respect of aforesaid violation(s) purportedly meted by the petitioners herein with respect to an order of injunction pronounced upon "them" in CMA NO. 218 of 6/15, the respondent herein "also" hence instituting before the learned trial Court "an" application cast under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC. Despite the aforesaid application standing instituted on 16.10.2015 before the learned trial Court by the respondent yet thereafter also the petitioners herein "are" alleged by the respondent herein "to" continue to violate the order(s) pronounced on 11.07.2016. Consequently, an application was filed by the respondent herein before the learned trial Court, application whereof was "cast" under the provisions of 151 CPC wherein he sought police help for implementing the apposite order(s) pronounced by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court proceeded to order for appointment of a Local Commissioner "for" hence his determining the alleged fact of the petitioners herein proceeding to continue to hold construction(s) upon Khasra No. 135. The counter claimant/defendants are aggrieved by the aforesaid rendition hence she is driven to assail it before this Court.

(2.) Even though the order rendered by the learned trial Court whereby it appointed a Local Commissioner, for hence his apposite report being facilitative for determining the controversy in respect of the defendants therein violating the orders pronounced in CMA No. 218 of 6/15 whereby they should restrained from interfering or thereafter holding construction upon suit Khasra No. 135 "may not" suffer from any gross illlegality or impropriety, it obviously being facilitative for unearthing the relevant facet(s) yet with prior thereto the respondent herein alleging that the petitioners begetting infraction of the relevant orders pronounced upon them, in sequel whereto given the evident pendency of proceedings against them before the learned trial Court "for theirs" violating them, thereupon it was rather befitting for the learned trial Court to earnestly in its wisdom proceed to promptly conclude proceedings in the petition instituted before it by the respondent herein wherein it stands alleged that the petitioners herein violating the orders pronounced upon them in CMP No. 218 of 6/15 , for facilitation whereof it was rather befitting for it to on the apposite violation being noticed "to in" prompt spontaneity thereof proceed to appoint a Local Commissioner, significantly when the appointment of a Local Commissioner by the learned trial Court at the earliest would have precluded the possibility of one and or the other unauthorizedly raising construction(s) upon the adjoining estate(s). It appears that the aforesaid specific exclusionary fact existing hereat, constrains this Court to conclude that the learned trial Court "not befittingly" at the earliest applying its wisdom to the necessity of appointment of a Local Commissioner occurring expeditiously or in quick spontaneity to the institution of proceedings under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC against the petitioners herein, appointment whereof would have thwarted further purported violation(s) at the instance of the petitioners herein with respect to the apposite pronouncement(s) made upon them. Consequently, the learned trial Judge "in not insagaciously" promptly concluding the aforesaid proceedings "whereas" his despite no prayer for ordering of demarcation occurring in the apposite application "his" hence proceeding to appoint a demarcating officer, constrains this Court to interfere with the order pronounced by the learned trial Court. Petition allowed. However, liberty is reserved to each of the parties to during pendency of the apposite petition, motion the learned trial Court for the appointment of a demarcating officer. The learned trial Court is directed to expeditiously consider the relevant prayer(s) of the litigants also is directed to receive objection(s) thereto and shall proceed to within three months dispose of the petition pending before it, "cast" under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC.