LAWS(RAJ)-2013-12-27

DILIP KUMAR UTMANI Vs. KANTA DEVI

Decided On December 19, 2013
Dilip Kumar Utmani Appellant
V/S
KANTA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of the same order dated 19.9.13 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge NO.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Application No. 41/13, and therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE appellant in SBCMA No. 3113/13, who is respondent in SBCMA No. 3403/13 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant -plaintiff') has filed the suit against the respondent -defendant, who is the appellant in the other appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent -defendant') seeking mandatory injunction for direction against the respondent -defendant to open the lock put on the main gate at the suit premises being Plot No. D -189 -B, Jagdish Market, Bani Park, Jaipur and seeking permanent injunction interalia for restraining the respondent -defendant from causing any obstruction to the appellant -plaintiff in bringing the goods of his business or causing any obstruction to his employees in running the machinery in the part of the basement and the ground floor of the suit premises, and also from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff and his family members in using the part of the first and second floor, marked with yellow colour in the site plan annexed to the plaint, for residential purpose. The appellant -plaintiff had also filed the application seeking temporary injunction of the same nature as sought in the suit.

(3.) AS per the case of the respondent -defendant, under the garb of said order dated 27.8.13, the appellant -plaintiff and his family members entered the disputed premises and threatened the respondent -defendant to dispossess her and, therefore, the respondent -defendant had to file counter application seeking temporary injunction against the appellant -plaintiff for restraining him from dispossessing her from the disputed premises, and from using the disputed premises for business purposes and for seeking the relief for restoring the position as existed on 21.8.13.