Rajasthan High Court
Nathu Lal Jain And Ors vs Ramavtar on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 594/2006
Nathu Lal Jain And Ors
----Appellant
Versus
Ramavtar
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Abhi Goyal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat,
Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
16/12/2021
Matter comes up on an application (No.2/2021) under
Section 151 CPC for issuing interim directions.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for
short 'the plaintiff') submits that the suit property is a shop along
with the house on its terrace/first floor adjacent by another shop
of the appellants-defendants (for short 'the defendants'), at the
side of which a common staircase exists, which is used by the
plaintiff also to access the terrace/first floor of his shop. He further
submits that as per the agreement to sell dated 26.09.1996, the
plaintiff was also granted the right to use the above described
common staircase, which is recorded in the impugned judgment.
He further submits that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit
property since 06.10.1996. He further submits that the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide ex-parte interim order dated
01.11.2006 stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and
(2 of 3) [CFA-594/2006]
decree in relation to execution of sale deed and its registration
meaning thereby the order of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment and
utilization of the suit property passed in the impugned judgment
was not stayed and is in operation till date. He further submits
that the defendants with the intention to interfere with the
peaceful enjoyment and utilization of the suit property, started to
demolish the adjacent shop with a further plan to demolish the
common stair case on the side of the adjoining shop on
24.11.2021. Whereas the plaintiff along with his family is residing
on the first floor of his shop for more than 25 years and he is also
entitled to use the common staircase, as mentioned above. He has
prayed to restrain the defendants or any other person acting on
their behalf or under the instructions from demolishing the
aforesaid common staircase.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-
applicants-defendants submits that the plaintiff have concealed
the material fact from the Court. The factual position is that the
plaintiff has already constructed a different staircase, which is
being used by them to go on the first floor above the shop. The
plaintiff has also raised the construction on the first floor over the
shop which is in possession of the plaintiff, as such the staircase in
possession of the defendants is not being used by the plaintiff. He
further submits that since the first floor over the shop of the
defendants was in dilapidated condition, the defendants started
repairing and construction work over the property, which is in their
ownership and possession. He also submits that the defendants
would not remove the staircase and the same would be further
required by them to go on the first floor of the suit property.
(3 of 3) [CFA-594/2006]
Heard. Considered.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and more particularly in view of the submissions made by
learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff that the
defendants would not remove the staircase as the same is further
required by them to go on the first floor of the property, no order
is required to be passed on the aforesaid application.
The application (No. 2/2021) stands disposed of.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
MR/29
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
