VIMLA Vs. DHANNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 29.7.2004.

(2.) The plaintiff filed suit for injunction against the respondents alleging that the outlet in dispute was sanctioned but it was not in use since last 20 years still the defendant no.4 submitted an application before the Executive Engineer and obtained the order for reopening of said closed outlet. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the Superintendent Engineer, which was dismissed and it was ordered that the outlet be opened and police help was also ordered. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction against the defendants including appellant. The trial court dismissed the suit on 28.2.2001. The plaintiff preferred appeal which was allowed by the appellate court on 29.7.2004, therefore, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

(3.) The trial court observed that the plaintiff in his statement stated that the outlet was never opened whereas the plaintiff's evidence was that the outlet is closed since last 20 years, therefore, the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. The trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2001.