MADHAVINDER SINGH Vs. MANVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 30.9.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in OMP No. 367 of 2008 in Civil Suit No. 59 of 2006.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that appellant has filed Civil Suit No. 59 of 2006 for passing preliminary decree for partition and putting the appellant in separate possession of his share. The suit is being contested by respondent No. 1, the respondents No. 2 has admitted the claim of the appellant. The issues were framed in the suit on 24.9.2008. The suit is pending for recording the evidence of the respondent No. 1.

(3.) THE appellant had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sections 94 and 151 CPC and has submitted that he most of the time stayed at New Delhi. The respondent No. 1 illegally and unauthorizedly had demolished some portion and started reconstruction activity in the cottage and servant quarters of Villette Estate, Khalini,. Shimla, the respondent No. 1 is also misusing the timber belonging to the parties which was lying in Villette Estate. The respondent No. 1 is likely to remove the timber to Naldehra where he is constructing some house. The respondent No. 1 has even obtained some permit from the: office of Divisional Forest Officer (Urban), Shimla for carrying the timber. The respondent No. 1 has no right to remove any property or assets from Villette Estate, Khalini till the final decision of the suit. The respondent No. 1 has also no right to make any illegal, unauthorized additions,, alternations or construction of any kind on any portion of the suit property without the consent of the appellant and respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 has illegally removed the personal luggage, wearing apparels and beds of appellant from his bed room in Villette Estate and dumped them in the servant quarters, some furniture of appellant has been kept in the open. The respondent No. 1 is also unauthorizedly using the property for the stay of strangers in the suit property and thereby he is misusing the same. The respondent No. 1 has not taken any permission from the Municipal Corporation for carrying out any construction, repair or renovation activities on the suit property. The entire work is being done by the respondent No. 1 illegally.