LALIT NARAYAN SHAH Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to challenge the order dt. 18.10.2005 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 55/2005 and prayed that the said order may be quashed and trial Court may be directed to proceed in the civil suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and decide the same on merit. As per facts of the case, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant-respondents and it is specifically pleaded in the suit that his property is consisting of two plots measuring 200 X 80 Sq ft exists at new Fatehpura. Upon the said property, the petitioner-plaintiff wanted to raise construction, therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent-defendants No. 2 to 4, on the one hand, and defendant No. I on the other, entered into an agreement on 18.03.2002 to perform the construction work for residential complex as per sanctioned plan duly approved by respondent Municipal Council, Udaipur. As per allegation for the petitioner-plaintiff, defendant-respondents No. 2 to 4 without consent for the petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1 which was contrary to the interests of the petitioner and since defendant-respondent No. 1 without obtaining the sanction of the Municipal Council, Udaipur and without getting the requisite conversion from residential to commercial, started erecting commercial premises without the consent of the petitioner which is Illegal and contrary to the rights and interests of the petitioner.

(2.) In the civil suit, it is prayed by the petitioner-plaintiff that respondent-defendant No. 1 may be restrained from raising construction of residential plot beyond the permission granted by the Municipal Council, Udaipur and specific injunction was sought in exercise of power conferred under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act that unauthorized construction raised by respondent-defendant No. 1 shall be demolished. It is also submitted that apprehension of the petitioner was that on the residential plot without getting the conversion of property from residential use to commercial by the Municipal Council, Udaipur the illegal construction has been raised for which the petitioner will be required to pay huge money both for conversion and penalty for raising the commercial complex in contravention of the sanctioned plan.

(3.) As per pleading in the suit, the petitioner sought injunction against defendant-respondent No. 1 as well as defendant-respondent No. 5 because collusion was arrived at between respondent-defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to 4.