FARHAT AND ASSOCIATES Vs. MD NEZAMUDDIN ALIAS NEZAM MALLICK
LAWS(CAL)-2012-5-9
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 03,2012

Farhat And Associates Appellant
VERSUS
Md Nezamuddin Alias Nezam Mallick Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant no.s 1 & 2 and is directed against the judgment and order dated August 2, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3 rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.95 of 2007 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated March 5, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5 th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.261 of 2006. 2
(2.) THE plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.261 of 2006 against the petitioners and other opposite parties before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5 th Court, Alipore for eviction on the ground of default and other reliefs. In that suit, the opposite parties filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from making construction of commercial building by the sanctioned plan. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the application directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till disposal of the suit. The defendants preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.95 of 2007 and that misc. appeal was dismissed on contest with costs thereby affirming the order dated March 5, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiffs have contended that the defendants are trying to make illegal construction by obtaining a second plan illegally. It is their specific contention that by the first plan, there was an open space and there was a provision for making underground water reservoir for storing water for the purpose of fire fighting as 3 provided in the original plan. If the defendants are allowed to raise construction, on that open space, the plaintiffs ' easement rights would also be seriously prejudiced. Both the Courts below have come to the concurrent findings in this regard.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.