SARFUDDIN Vs. KAMRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This court way back on Ist of November, 1985 had ordered in a revision which arose out of an application for grant of temporary injunction that when defendant constructs his house, he will leave at least 4 feet space towards the plaintiff's house so that from that 4 feet the plaintiff may have right of passage. The main suit is still pending. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2a of the Code of Civil Procedure saying that the defendant has raised constructions and has not left 4 feet space. The trial court appointed an Advocate as a Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner reported that the distance between the house of the plaintiff and defendant is 7 feet 1 inch. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs application. This is plaintiffs revision against the said order.

(2.) THE revision has been pending in this court for nearly 7 years and the record of the trial court is also here. By now the suit and appeal may have been disposed of. I cannot help saying that in revisions arising out of suits which are pending in the trial court, by and large record should not be summoned by the High Court. THE High Court while hearing such revisions at the admission stage should direct, if necessary, to the counsel appearing in the case to have brief from the lawyer appearing in the trial court or time be given to the counsel to complete their brief after inspecting the record of the trial court instead of summoning the record on their mere asking.

(3.) THE record of the trial court is here and the same be sent back forthwith. THE parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 4th of October,1994. .