SARDAR GURUCHAND SINGH Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are connected revision applications by the defendant and the plaintiff respectively against an appellate order of the District Judge, Kota passed on an application under Order 39, Rule 2 C. P. C. filed by the plaintiff before the trial court. The application was rejected by the trial court but was allowed in part by the appellate court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material which was before the trial court when it passed its order. I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction as prayed by him.

(3.) THE State cannot therefore impose an easement in favour of the defendant on this approach will have the effect of lessening its utility for the plaintiff without the consent of the latter. If the defendant is allowed to use the approach road there will be some obstruction to the passage of vehicles of the plaintiff over it. Further there will be greater wear and tear of this road which is being maintained by the plaintiff. THE consent of the plaintiff to the imposition of another easement in favour of another lessee can be presumed only to the extent laid down in rule 17 (11) of the Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules 1959. THE rule has been quoted above. That rule will only permit the defendant to use the approach road provided it is not reasonably practicable for him to construct his own road. Further he must himself widen it at his own expense so as to permit the passage of two trucks simultaneously before he can be allowed to use it.