GH AHMAD GILKAR Vs. DEWAN SOMESHWAR NATH MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case presents a typical, at the same time a sad illustration of the oft -quoted maxim of laws delays.

(2.) THE plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction with respect to some immoveable property of not very great consequence situate at Habakadal - About defendant No.1 who is the main petitioner in this revision petition, it was stated that he intended to repair his property in such a way as would injure the plaintiffs share of the property. Therefore defendant No.1 should be restrained from effecting repairs to his share of the property in such a way as to cause any harm to the property of the plaintiff.

(3.) IN his first written statement, defendant 1 stated that the plaintiff had no right to the property. In the second written statement dated 16 -3 -57 the defendant stated that he had nothing to do with the property and that he had been unnecessarily made a defendant in the suit. Though it is not very necessary for me to state what the defence of defendant No.1 in the suit was, yet in view of what follows it is worthwhile to make such a mention.