RAGHUVEER SINGH RATNU Vs. CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE EAST JAIPUR METROPOLITAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, challenging the order dated 23/10/2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate East, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.531 of 2012, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents-defendants seeking permission to put up construction on the suit plot.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction in respect of the plot No.A-159A situated adjacent to the plot No.A-160, belonging to the petitioner-plaintiff. According to the petitioner, the respondent Nos.2 and 3-defendants claiming ownership and possession of the pot No.A-159A were putting up construction without obtaining due permission from the concerned authority. The petitioner-plaintiff had also sought the temporary injunction under Order XLIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, pending the suit. The said temporary injunction application was allowed by the Trial Court vide the order dated 27th April, 2006, whereby the respondents-defendants were restrained from raising any construction over the disputed plot till the disposal of the suit. The respondents-defendants challenged the said order by filing appeal in the Court of Additional District and Session Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court'). The said appeal was partly allowed by the Appellate Court vide the order dated 12/5/2010, granting the respondents-defendants liberty to move the application before the Trial Court seeking permission to raise the construction. In view of the said order passed by the Appellate Court, the respondents filed a fresh application under Section 151 of CPC. The Trial Court vide the impugned order has permitted the respondents to raise the construction, subject to their filing the undertaking to the effect that if the respondents fail in the suit, they will remove/demolish the said construction.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia for the petitioner that the patta in respect of the plot in question allegedly allotted to the respondents has already been cancelled by the Jaipur Development Authority. According to him, when the patta itself has been cancelled, the respondents cannot be permitted to put up any construction.