Sohan Lal vs Sri Pooran Chand and another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for respondent no.2. The petitioner before this Court had filed a suit being suit no. 86 of 2012 before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun against respondent no.1/defendant for permanent injunction in which Mussoorrie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun was also one of the defendants. The trial court had granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner without issuing notices to the defendants/respondents on 28.2.2012. Subsequently, defendant no.1 had put in appearance and filed an application for vacating the said temporary injunction. The said temporary injunction was modified by the trial court on 5.3.2012.

All the same, on an application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner for recalling the order dated 5.3.2012, the trial court had recalled the order dated 5.3.2012 and directed that the order dated 28.2.2012 shall remain effective. The present position is that there is an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner.

The only case of the plaintiff/petitioner before this Court is that he has moved an application under Order VI Rule 9 of CPC for an inspection by a Commission on his own expenses. He further prays that it would be in the interest of justice that before adjudicating the stay vacation application of the defendant/respondent no.1, a spot inspection may be done.

Respondent no.1 who is being represented by Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal has though expressed apprehension that this application of the plaintiff/petitioner is only a dilatory tactics in order to linger on the suit as there is already a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Moreover, he submits that a huge amount has already been invested and he would be running a financial loss in case the construction is delayed any further.

After hearing both the parties, the matter is disposed of with a direction to the court below to pass an order on the application of the plaintiff/petitioner regarding appointment of Commission, and if he deems it proper and necessary then he shall appoint a Commission and in case the court below feels that the appointment of a Commission will not solve any purpose, he may pass the appropriate orders to that effect. The same be done expeditiously without further delay. Immediately thereafter he should consider and dispose of the application of the defendant/respondent no.1. No order as to costs.