NISHANT KOUL Vs. ROMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant through the medium of the present appeal seeks setting aside of order dtd. 9/10/2021 passed by the learned Court of Principal District Judge, Reasi, whereby the prayer sought for by the appellant in the interim application filed in the suit was declined and the defendants were directed to file undertaking in the Court that if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit the defendants shall remove the construction or any development on the suit land at their own cost and further that the defendants shall not alienate the land till disposal of the suit. The order is impugned on the ground that there was no justification for the trial Court to allow the construction over the suit land as the basis on which the defendants claim their right in the suit land is not valid in law, the trial Court having admitted that the suit requires trial and the rights of the parties can be determined only during the trial. The trial Court has failed to visualize the real controversy between the parties. In case the defendants are not restrained from raising construction the appellant will be subject to hardship and irreparable loss.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have appeared through learned counsel to contest the appeal. As the relief was sought by the appellant against the aforesaid respondents before the trial court, therefore, the matter was taken up for consideration even in the absence of the respondent No.4

(3.) Mr. P.N Goja, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff has taken the Court through the various documents on record in support of his argument that the trial Court erred in not allowing the prayer of the appellant in the application and allowing the defendants to raise the construction with the conditions as mentioned in the impugned order. The argument in precise raised on behalf of the appellant is that the documents on which the defendants rely upon do not confer any legal right in the property and as the issues raised in the suit require consideration, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law.