KALU RAM Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No. 4/2006 whereby an application moved by the present petitioner for placing certain documents on record in support of his defence of the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the facts and aspects relevant for the present purpose as emerging from the material as placed on record and as placed for perusal during the course of submissions are that the present petitioner Kalu Ram (also referred herein as 'the plaintiff' or as 'the non -applicant') has filed a suit for perpetual injunction in relation to a dispute concerning projection ('Chhajja') of his house situated at Naya Darwaja, Nagaur with the averments indicative that he had purchased the house in question on 25.02.1977 and carried out renovation, including placing of the projection measuring 32'4" x 2'6" on the front side; that the projection got damaged and he was carrying out repairs on 02.05.2001 when the members of the family of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Ram Prasad and Narendra (also referred herein as 'the defendants' or as 'the applicants') raised objections and entered into altercation whereupon First Information Report was lodged with the Police Station, Nagaur; that two slabs were damaged and placing of such projection was obstructed by the defendants, who are the eastern side neighbours. The plaintiff has prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from creating any obstruction in placing of the projection and a railing thereupon. An application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also moved by the present petitioner -plaintiff against the present respondents -defendants that came to be allowed by the learned trial court on 13.02.2003 and thereby an injunction was issued against the defendants that they would not create any obstruction in placing of 32' 4" x 30" size projection by the plaintiff and would not create obstruction in placing of two slabs on the eastern side of the projection; but with the stipulation that the plaintiff shall carry out such construction within the precinct of his house and shall submit an undertaking before the court that in the event of failing in the suit, he shall remove the construction at his cost.

(3.) THE present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an application (Annex. R/1) under Order XXXIX Rule 2 -A CPC before the learned Appellate Court with the allegations that the present petitioner Kalu Ram has violated the interim order passed by the court for maintaining status quo and has made certain constructions on 23/24.01.2006 and intended further to alter the status obtainable at the site. The present petitioner has denied the allegations as made in the application by filing a reply (Annex. R/2) stating, inter alia, that the order dated 27.02.2003 relates only to the disputed projection and there is no other "disputed property". The present petitioner has also alleged that the story about raising of construction on 23/24.01.2006 was imaginary and incorrect. The petitioner has also stated that in the application for temporary injunction he had pointed out that two slabs of the projection were damaged by the defendants and the complaint in that regard was made to the Municipal Board, Nagaur and to the Police; that undertaking was submitted to the trial court on 21.02.2003 in pursuance of the order dated 13.02.2003 and thereafter, when he started placing the projection ('Chhajja'), the other side entered into altercation whereupon an application was made to the learned trial court on 26.02.2003 for police protection.