RINKU SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. SUSHEEL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, instituted a suit for rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, averring therein qua the defendants being restrained, vis-a-vis, the portion reflected as ABCD in the apposite site plan, from, carrying construction thereon, and, from closing the door shown therein, as, D-1, besides the defendants being restrained to erect, an, iron stair case upon portion ABCD. The plaintiff averred that he is, a, tenant under the defendants, in, the relevant premises. The defendants contested the suit, and, contended therein, that, the door reflected as D-1, in, the apposite site plan, being never used as egress or ingress, by the plaintiff, rather it being only used for ventilation of air. The defendants also contended that the erection, of, the iron stair case, rather occurring on 25.12.2017, hence, prior to the filing of the instant suit.

(2.) During the pendency of the civil suit, before, the learned trial Court, the plaintiff, hence, instituted an application, cast, under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, whereon, the learned trial Court, after considering, the relevant material placed before him, rendered an order on 6.01.2018, (i) whereunder, the defendants were restrained either personally, or through their servants, agents or assignees, from, interfering by raising construction, and, by closing door, reflected as D-1, in portion shown as ABCDEF in the apposite site plan, in hence the plaintiff making use, of, the demised premises. The afore referred pronouncement made on 6.01.2018, by the learned trial Court, being, not concerted to be reversed, thereupon, hence it acquires conclusivity.

(3.) On 6.01.2018, the learned trial Court also allowed the plaintiff's application, for, appointment, of, a local commissioner, for visiting the apposite site, and, for his making an apt report, vis-a-vis, the nature and extent, of, construction, raised by the defendants, upon, the relevant site. The Local Commissioner, visited the relevant site, and, in the relevant inspection thereof, he, associated, the, presence before him, of all the contesting litigants, (i) the factum of the litigating parties taking part in the inspection, carried by the local commissioner, of the relevant site, is borne out, by their signatured statements, appended, with the report of the Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner, in his apposite report, report whereof, is, accompanied by the apt photographs, and, by a rough site plan, and, as stood submitted before the learned trial Court, has, made disclosures therein, (ii) qua, the possession of the plaintiff, existing, at portions CDEF in the site plan, besides has made disclosures therein qua the back door, hence, leading to the office of the plaintiff, (iii) and, furthermore, has detailed therein, qua the defendants erecting a stair case, adjoining, the, back door of the office of the plaintiff, whereupon, the plaintiff, is, precluded to open the apt door, leading to his office. The aforesaid portrayals, as, embodied in the report of the Local Commissioner, remains, apparently not objected, to, by the defendants, given, theirs, not meteing any objections thereto. Consequently, the apposite depictions/unfoldments, made, by the Local Commissioner, in his report, do acquire an aura of solemnity, and, hence, the unfoldments occurring therein, are, to be prima faice hence meted credence.