LAWS(J&K)-2010-7-1

ANANT RAM Vs. ISHER DASS

Decided On July 23, 2010
ANANT RAM Appellant
V/S
ISHER DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner on 21.1.2007 commenced a Civil Suit against the respondents in the Court of Sub Judge Udhampur for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3000/-from the respondents as damages for illegal dismantling of the compound wall, details whereof were given in the plaint. The petitioner also asked for permanent injunction decree perpetually restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit compound or any construction "of his choice" raised by the petitioner on the suit land. Alongside the suit the petitioner filed an application for grant of ad-Interim injunction. The Trial Court on the date of institution of the suit and temporary injunction application, granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and temporarily restrained the respondents from causing any interference in construction of the compound wall raised by the petitioner to fence the suit property. The operative part of the interim injunction dated 22.1.2007 reads as under:

(2.) The ad-interim injunction order dated 22.1.2007 was followed by an order dated 29.1.2007 directing Additional S.P. Udhampur, and officer Incharge Police Station Rehambal, to implement the ad-interim injunction on spot, without fail and submit compliance report. Copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the aforementioned Police officers for strict compliance. However, the Trial Court did not take any steps to finally dispose of the temporary injunction application within one month after ex parte injunction was passed as is mandated by order 39 Rule 3-A, though the respondents entered appearance and even filed their objections on 6.2.2007.

(3.) The respondents aggrieved of ex parte ad-interim injunction order dated 22.1/2007 filed a civil miscellaneous appeal on 8.3.2007 in the Court of Pr. District Judge, Udhampur. The Appellate Court vide order dated 30.8.2007 set aside the Trial Court order dated 22.1.2007 remanded the matter and asked the Trial Court to pass fresh orders and also restore the position on spot, to the position as it existed prior to commencement of the suit.