SATYANARAIN SINGH Vs. VIMLADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of an order dated 19.9.2000 of the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur City Jaipur in Civil Misc. Appln. No. 298/2000 (Old No. 166/98) in civil suit No. 227/2000 whereby application under Section 151, CPC filed by defendants (petitioners) was rejected.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the present revision petition are summerised thus, Shantidevi alongwith her son Narendra Kumar instituted a civil suit No. 8/96 (renumbered as 494/96) on 2.1.1996 before the Addl. Civil Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, seeking perpetual injunction besides a relief that Vimla Devi and Others defendants including the present petitioners be restrained from putting any channel gate or raising any wall or creating any hinderance in free use of passage and Baramada (Ikdara) shown as ABC in a map (Annex.1) annexed to the plaint. Alongwith that suit, temporary injunction application registered as Misc. Appln. No. 262/96 was also filed, to which reply was filed by the present petitioners on 27.5.1997. The TI application was finally decided by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 5, Jaipur under order dated 16.9.1998 (Annex.2) whereby Vimla Devi was restrained from constructing any wall or putting any channel gate or creating any hinderance on the passage in question and further directing her to maintain status quo as it existed pending suit.

(3.) BUT Vimla Devi instituted suit No. 266/98 against the Municipal Corporation on 22.9.1998 and challenged the aforesaid notice for demolishing the construction of the wall erected by her on 18.9.1998 on the Baramada in dispute not only without arraying the present petitioners as party to the suit but also by concealing temporary injunction order dated 16.9.1998 and thereby misled the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur City with an oblique motive to get stay order.