LAWS(HPH)-2017-9-56

RANJANA TREHAN Vs. PANKAJ SOOD AND OTHERS

Decided On September 14, 2017
Ranjana Trehan Appellant
V/S
Pankaj Sood And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit against the defendants/petitioners, wherein one Pranay Kumar is impleaded as a proforma defendant. The relief, which stands ventilated herein, is, for pronouncement of a decree of permanent prohibitory and of mandatory injunction upon defendants No. 1 and 2 against theirs raising construction upon suit Khasra No. 119 and 147, wherefrom the plaintiffs access the ground floor of their house, comprised in Khasra No. 129. The claim for easementry right of passage vis-à- vis the plaintiff(s) besides its being exercisable upon the servient heritage borne in Khasra Nos 119 and 147, is, anvilled upon apposite entries, in respect of the aforesaid suit Khasra Nos., occurring in the public records, entries whereof display of the suit Khasra Nos. being reflected as a "gair mumkin gali. The suit is resisted by the defendants, on, the ground that access(s) alternative, to, the aforesaid purported access(s) being also available, to, the plaintiffs being besides vis-à-vis tenants of the plaintiffs, alternative access(s) whereof exist in the vicinity of Sanitorium Hospital. The factum of the validity(s)/tenacities of the apt reflection(s) occurring in the revenue records, in, respect of suit Khasra Nos.119 and Khasra No. 147 being depicted therein, to, be a gair mumkin gali, also, thereupon the plaintiffs' establishing their right to trudge thereon, for theirs' accessing their abodes located upon Khasra No. 129, is, awaiting adjudication by the learned trial Court.

(2.) The relevant statutory provisions stand borne in Order 11 Rule 1, 2 and 14, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant contend that the aforesaid ingredient(s) is, prima-facie, not, substantiated thereupon the order pronounced by the learned trial Court warrants vindication. However, the aforesaid submission is rejected, as averment(s) compatible vis-à-vis apposite besides congruous therewith recitals borne in the application at hand, also visibly occurring, in the written statement, especially in paragraph- 3 thereof.