Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sidhshree vs Lalit Kumar And Anr on 28 July, 2021
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 3) [CFA-289/2014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 289/2014
Smt. Sidhshree
----Appellant
Versus
Lalit Kumar And Anr.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani.
Mr. Samarpit Gupta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi.
Mr. Mahendra Thanvi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
28/07/2021
The matter comes up on second stay application filed by the
respondent, inter alia, with the submissions that the appellant was
undertaking construction in the suit property and, therefore, he be
restrained from undertaking construction.
A reply to the application has been filed seeking to deny the
averments made in the application.
Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that
the suit filed by the respondent stands decreed and the appellant
was undertaking construction in the property, for which, he has no
right and, therefore, the appellant be restrained from undertaking
construction.
Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that as
the decree passed by the trial court has been stayed and there is
no restraint order, the appellant is entitled to use the property
including raise required construction.
(2 of 3) [CFA-289/2014]
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The suit filed by the respondent for preemption has been
decreed by judgment and decree dated 26.09.2014. Admittedly,
the appellant is in possession of the property, for which, the
decree has been passed and the execution of the decree passed
by the trial court came to be stayed by order dated 21.11.2014.
Looking to the nature of decree, which has been passed and
the nature of construction, which is sought to be raised by
demolishing an existing wall between the shop and residential
portion, it cannot be said that the right of the respondent, in the
appeal would get effected in any manner so as to seek
injunction/stay against the appellant from raising the construction.
In view thereof, no case for grant of an interim order is made
out, the second stay application filed by the respondent is
dismissed.
However, in case, the appellant intends to now make any
structural change in the suit property, it would be required of the
appellant to seek permission of this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on stay application
filed by the appellant alongwith the appeal.
The interim order dated 21.11.2014 is confirmed to last till
the disposal of the appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that
pursuant to the decree of the trial court, the respondent-plaintiff
has deposited the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- with the trial court.
In view of the fact that execution of the decree has been
stayed by this Court, the amount deposited by the respondent-
plaintiff, on an application, be returned back to the respondent-
(3 of 3) [CFA-289/2014]
plaintiff by the trial court without prejudice to his rights in the
appeal and regarding the compliance of the decree passed by the
trial court.
With the above observations, the stay application stands
disposed of.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
85-PKS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
