Ganga Ram vs Nanak and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 15.10.2010, whereby an application for grant of ad interim injunction has been dismissed in appeal.

The Plaintiff claims title over the suit property on the basis of the decree suffered by Simbhu son of Sohan on 11.06.1984 in favour of the Plaintiff. From the recitals in the orders passed by the Courts below, it transpires that the Plaintiff is the brother of Simbhu, who alleges himself to be adopted by him and on that basis claimed a decree from the Civil Court in respect of the property of Simbhu. The decree is that the Plaintiff is owner in possession of the house situated in the area of Municipal Committee, Sonipat. The Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction accompanied with an application for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from demolishing the house ABCD detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint and from raising any construction over the same and from changing the existing position of the house till the decision of the case.

The said application for grant of ad interim injunction was allowed by the learned trial Court on 21.04.2009, but in appeal, the Defendants made a statement that no fresh construction shall be made site and that the Defendants want to carry out furnishing work in the form of plastering, flooring as well as making tiles work over the roof of constructed portion together with boundary wall over the site so as to make it usable for worship purposes. On the basis of said statement, the learned first Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and permitted the Defendants to carry out furnishing work, but restraining them from raising any fresh construction.

The Plaintiff claims to have title from Simbhu, but how Simbhu was owner or in possession of the suit land is not explained. It is also doubtful that the Plaintiff could be adopted by Simbhu, who is none else, but his real brother, but the said questions are better left to be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence, which may be led by the parties. Suffice is to say that the Defendants have been permitted to use the construction to be raised for plastering, flooring as well as making tiles work over the roof of constructed portion. The Defendants have been restrained from raising any fresh construction.

In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed.