PRABHI DEVI Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment Yes. This appeal has been instituted by the plaintiff while he is unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(2.) A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has been instituted against the respondents restraining them from making any construction on the suit land as claimed. The Municipal Corporation which has been arrayed as defendant No.1 filed its written statement pleading that both the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 were summoned before the building plans of the other defendants were sanctioned. They were heard and it was only thereafter that the plans were sanctioned. On the settled issues, three crucial issues arose for determination, namely, the entitlement of the appellants-plaintiffs to a decree for prohibitory injunction; the legality of order dated 3.6.1995 passed by the Municipal Corporation sanctioning the plans of other defendants and entitlement of the plaintiffs for decree of mandatory injunction. These issues were held against the plaintiffs. While deciding these issues, the learned trial Court notices that the entire controversy between the parties centers around the existence of a common passage over Khasra No.543. The learned Court holds that this controversy already stands adjudicated by Sub Judge, Court No.2, Shimla in Civil Suit No.45/1 of 98/95, decided on 15.5.2003, titled as: Smt.Raj Kumari & Others vs. Rajmal Rajput and Others.

(3.) Copies of the judgment Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C have been placed on record. The issues were, therefore, held against the plaintiffs. On the other issues, namely, issues No.3 to 12, the Court notes that no evidence has been led and they are decided against the plaintiffs. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, was dismissed by the learned appellate Court holding that there is no evidence on the record.