Gaurav and Another vs Shri Vikram Kumar Aggarwal and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—Gaurav and another filed a suit for perpetual injunction (prohibitory and mandatory) seeking to restrain and prohibit respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from excavating earth and removing soil of the ground floor of the shop in dispute as fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. The plaintiffs also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking ad interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from excavating the earth and from constructing the basement without getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee.

The learned trial Court on a consideration of the matter and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the construction of the basement is not going to cause any harm to the plaintiff especially when much part of the basement has already been constructed and if stay is granted at this stage, the defendants would suffer irreparable loss. It also came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendants. It consequently dismissed the application vide order dated 11.8.1993.

The plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court dated 11.8.1993 preferred an appeal which was assigned to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties also came to the conclusion that major portion of the building had already been constructed and completed by the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction prayed for. In the ultimate analysis he dismissed the appeal vide order dated 4.12.1993. Hence this revision petition at the instance of the plaintiffs.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defendants have raised construction by excavating the earth in the absence of sanctioned plan from the Municipal Committee. Learned Counsel further submits that the stand of the defendants in the written statement is that they have already completed construction. Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff-petitioners have already concluded their evidence and the case is now listed for evidence of the defendants for 18.2.1999. Counsel for the petitioners submits that status quo with regard to the construction may be ordered to be maintained by the parties till further orders and direction be given to the trial Court to dispose of the suit at an early date in accordance with law. Mr. Chahar, learned counsel for the defendants tried to justify the order.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and have perused the record of the revision petition. The Court while issuing notice of motion on 9.12.1993 had ordered maintenance of status quo with regard to the construction till further orders. An interim order passed on 9.12.1993 was made absolute in the presence of the counsel for the parties vide order dated 9.3.1994. Order of status quo is thus continuing for the last 5 years. The stand of the defendants is that they have already completed the construction. In this view of the matter, the prayer made by the plaintiffs in their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot be granted. Therefore, keeping in view the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement and the order of status quo granted by this Court on 9.12.1993, I dispose of this revision petition by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the construction till the final disposal of the suit especially when the plaintiffs have already closed their evidence and the building stands constructed as per the version of the defendants. Since the suit is already listed for the evidence of the defendants for 13.2.1999, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law at a very early date preferably within a period of six months. No costs.