9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er including the school buildings constructed thereon and not to demolish or take any steps for removal of the constructions. An interim injunction along the same lines to enure during the suit was sought. That application was opposed. Respondent No.3, in turn sought an injunction restraining the petitioner-plaintiff from putting up any construction outside an area of 16,000 Sq. ft. The trial court granted an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner but confined it to an area of 16,000 Sq. ft. and the construction thereon and also restrained him from putting up any construction outside it but included in the plaint schedule. The petitioner appealed against those orders and the Additional District Judge allowed the appeals and modifyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition filed before it under Section 115 of the Code as a proceeding initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents had filed the revision originally and during the pendency of that revision the High Court appears to have taken a view that an order in an appeal arising from a proceeding under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, could not be challenged under Section 115 of the Code since the order was in the nature of an interlocutory order. In such a situation, in our view, the High Court rightly decided to permit the revision petitioners before it, to convert the same as a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After all, the court could have done it on its own, even without a motion in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 16,000 Sq. ft. and the structures thereon and the appellate court was not justified in modifying the order of the trial court. The High Court set aside the order of the appellate court and restored the order of the trial court. Thus, the High Court confined the order of injunction to an area of 16,000 Sq. ft and the structures thereon. 4.This Court by order dated 12.7.2003, stayed the operation of the order of the High Court as also any action for demolition until the matter was heard in this Court. On 14.7.2003, while issuing notice on the petitions for special leave to appeal, this Court also ordered that until further orders, the order dated 12.7.2003 shall continue to remain in operation. Thus, the order passed by this Court on 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the fact that an educational institution is said to be functioning in the property. 6.Learned counsel for Res.No.3 submitted that under the cover of this order, the appellant is attempting to put up constructions in the disputed property and it is just and necessary to prevent him from doing so. We think that this prayer deserves to be granted, especially, in the context of the fact that we are trying to maintain the status quo until the suit is finally disposed of. We, therefore, restrain the appellant - the plaintiff in the suit, from putting up any further construction and from altering or modifying any existing construction until the disposal of the suit. In other words, there will not only be an injunction against the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
