VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated November 10, 1993 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridabad.
(2.) THE decree holders (petitioners herein) had filed a suit on the allegations that they had purchased the suit land from one Ram Chander, the previous owner, vide registered sale deed dated February 4, 1983 and thereafter, they constructed sheds and chabutra on the same in March, 1983. Notice dated January 6, 1986 was received by them from the respondents threatening to demolish the front wall of the shed. The plaintiffs claimed that since the shed was constructed much prior to the period of six months, therefore, it could not have been demolished in view of the provisions of Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act. When the defendants refused to withdraw the notice, the suit was filed. In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs were held to be in possession of the suit land. However, the suit was dismissed since they could not prove that the construction was completed by them more than six months prior to the issuance of the notice. An appeal was filed by the decree holders. The learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated December 3, 1990 passed a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the decree holders. It was held that the construction on the land in question was more than six months old and therefore, the defendants had no right to demolish the same under the provisions of Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment, a regular second appeal No. 665 of 1991 was filed, but the same was also dismissed vide order of this Court dated April 24, 1991. However, liberty was granted to the Faridabad Complex by observing that it would always be open to the Faridabad Complex to proceed against the respondents for demolishing the construction, if the same is permissible under any other law except Haryana Municipal Act.;