9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lli and Rekha Palli, Advs. JUDGMENT N. Santosh Hegde, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant had filed a Civil Suit No. 541 of 2000 for possession of the suit scheduled property with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking injunction restraining the respondent herein from alienating the suit property and putting up any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the respondent has no intention of alienating any part of the property and further that the defendant shall raise construction if any at his own risk costs without claiming any compensation. It is further stated that if the defendant inducts any tenant in any such premises so constructed, the person inducted would be made aware of the pendency of the litigation and would be bound by the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, contended that both the lower appellate court and the High Court were justified in making the impugned order because the appellant has not established any prima facie case and if the suit property is to be allowed to remain in the present condition, the respondent will be put to great hardship and an irreparable loss. 9. While it is true that the lower appellate court did go into the quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot think in the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower appellate court and the High Court were justified in permitting the respondent to change the nature of property by putting up construction as also by permitting the alienation of the property, whatever may be the condition on which the same is done. In the event of the appellant's claim being found baseless ultimately, it is alway ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
