AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present Misc. Appeal has been filed challenging the
order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the District Judge, Bikaner in
Civil Misc. Case No.260/2016, whereby the Court below has
passed an interlocutory order restraining the parties from selling,
transferring or mortgaging the disputed property.
Mr. Chitlangi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the order under challenge does not meet the ends of justice
inasmuch as if the ongoing construction is not stopped, it would
adversely affect the right of the petitioner. The learned Court
below ought to have restrained the respondents-defendant from
carrying on construction.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e. suit for
partition and perpetual injunction, this Court is of the considered
view that the interlocutory order, in the manner passed is
prefectly just and proper in the facts of the present case. No
fruitful purpose would be served by restraining the parties from
raising construction, which is on the verge of completion.
In view of the present factual matrix, this Court does not
want to interfere in the interlocutory order dated 05.12.2016,
passed by the learned Trial Court.
It is however made clear that rival parties shall not claim
any equity or rights arising from continuation of the construction
being raised by the respondents. Modification or affirmation of the
order dated 05.12.2016, by this Court, will not come in the way of
the learned Trial Court, while finally deciding the application under
Order 39 Rules 1 &2 CPC.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.