ZAHEER AHMED Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been prepared to this court by the above named petitioner against the impugned order dated 02.04.1997 passed by Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 17/1995 (Zaheer Ahmed v. Municipal Corporation) whereby the relief of ad-interim injunction in a suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction during the pendency of the main suit was declined by both the trial Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide its order dated 04.2.1995 in Civil Misc. Case No. 342/92 as well as by the appellate court vide the impugned order as referred to above.

(2.) The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties are that the plaintiff petitioner had filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction against the respondent defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") for protection of his possession right and interest in the property in dispute since the Corporation was adopting coercive methods to dislodge and dispossess the petitioner from the suit premises without observing the due process of law and the procedure and the petitioner had been threatened by the Corporation for demolition of his property and as such, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid suit for the relief of permanent injunction with an application for grant of ad-interim injunction pending the hearing and final disposal of the said suit. The contentions of the petitioner briefly stated are that right from his forefathers the possession of the petitioner as regards the suit property has been continuous and this fact is borne out from the specific mention of his ancestor Shri Budha in the relevant record of Samwat 1925. The land in dispute forms the part of Khasra Nos. 271 to 289 which have been shown in the name of Budha, the ancestor of the petitioner right from Samwat year 1925 which fact is clearly borne out from the relevant record. Since the Corporation had taken every possible steps to dislodge the petitioner from the property in dispute which has been in his continuous possession right from the times of his ancestors and since the property was in need of immediate repairs on account of its dilapidated condition, the petitioner had carried out certain repairs which were of impelling necessity for the maintenance and upkeep of the said property and for which no formal permission from the Municipal Corporation was necessary since no new construction had been added or raised.

(3.) During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that immediately on the receipt of the notice threatening the petitioner with regard to demolition of his property and in view of the threatened and illegal action of the Corporation in having demolished the boundary wall surrounding the suit premises which was five feet in its height, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction. Alongwith the main suit the petitioner had moved the necessary application for grant of ad-interim relief of injunction and had sought direction from the trial court to restrain the Corporation from demolishing his property with a further direction to maintain the status-quo. In support of establishing his prima facie case, the petitioner had furnished all relevant documentary evidence by placing the same on the record of the trial court such as House Tax Receipts w.e.f. the year 1980 to the date of institution of the suit, Ration Card, relevant extracts from the Voter's List, City Survey Report and the Consensus carried out by the authorities which established the continuity of possession of the petitioner over the suit property in question. Besides the above documents a registered Patta establishing the possession of the petitioner's grandfather Late Shri Budha right from Samwat year 1925 was also shown for perusal of the courts below.