Rajinder Singh Litt vs Ramesh Kumar

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed against the order dated 26.8.1997 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana. By this order, the learned Addl. District Judge has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/defendant and has upheld the order dated 8.8.1997 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Jagraon.

In the present case, the plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from making any obstruction or creating any hindrance in discharging the water from the house of the plaintiff. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed for interim injunction. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel of the parties, rejected the prayer of the plaintiff with regard to alleged hindrance in discharging the water from the area 15'' 6" which is on the southern portion of the house of the plaintiff. The other prayer of the plaintiff was, however, allowed by the learned trial court and the learned trial court restrained the petitioner/defendant from making any obstruction or hindrance in the ingress/egress to and from the house of the plaintiff on the southern portion of his house. The findings of the learned trial Court were upheld by the learned lower appellate Court.

Mr. Punia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the report of the local commissioner, the plaintiff is having the main gate of his house on the northern side of the house and as such the balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff but on the contrary it was in favour of the petitioner/defendant. He further submits that in the main suit, the plaintiff has not even made any prayer for restraining the defendant from making any obstruction and the only prayer made was that defendant should be restrained from making any obstruction with regard to any hindrance in discharging the water and not otherwise.

Mr. Chahal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the plaintiff has made two independent prayers in the suit one of which is with regard to making any obstruction on the part of the defendants. He further submits that as per the report of the local commissioner the area in question was obstructed by freshly constructing wall approximately 3'' in height. He further submits that the local commissioner visited the site on 10.7.1997 whereas the interim injunction was granted on 13.6.1997.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders passed by the Courts below, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the well reasoned order passed by the Courts below. From reading of the plaint prima facie I find that there is a prayer for restraining the defendants from making any obstruction on the land 15'' 6". In any case both the Courts below have come to a prima facie conclusion that the defendants should be restrained from making any obstruction by raising any wall and the findings of the Courts below are based on good reasons and do not call for any interference in the present proceedings under Section 115 CPC.

For the reason recorded herein above, the petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

It is, however, made clear that any observations made herein above shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.