High CourtsSingle Bench

Suresh Chand Jain vs Atul Jain and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 P&H CK 0059

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hemant Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 7844 of 2010 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 291 words

Hemant Gupta, J.—The Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 03.11.2010, whereby an appeal against an order passed by the learned trial Court declining ad interim injunction was dismissed.

2.

It is the case of the Petitioner that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are raising construction near the house of the Plaintiff in violation of the site plan sanctioned by the Municipal Council. Such construction is of multi-storey building and will affect the rights of the Petitioner. It is further pointed out that the Municipal Council in its written statement itself has averred that the construction raised by the Defendants is against the sanctioned site plan.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner admits that the Municipal Council has issued notice to the Defendants for demolition of the unauthorized construction, but the Defendants have filed a separate suit against the action of the Municipal Council and in which suit ad interim injunction has been granted.

4.

In the present case, the Defendants have given a statement that they shall raise construction as per the sanctioned site plan and the construction raised is at the risk and cost of the Defendants. But having raised construction, the Defendants have filed the separate suit in which there is ad interim order as pointed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

5.

It is for the Petitioner to seek an appropriate order in a suit filed by the Defendants against the action of the Municipal Council to seek demolition of unauthorized constriction. The Petitioner has already taken such step.

6.

Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

7.

Dismissed.