Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J. - (1.) INSTANT revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2011 (annexure P -8) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar and for restoring the order dated 16.04.2011 (Annexure P -6) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Nawanshahr vide which parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding structural alteration. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent -defendant from making any structural alterations in any portion of the house situated in Lal Lakir of village Kamam, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. In the said suit, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. The trial Court vide order dated 16.04.2011 (Annexure P -6) ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding structural alteration. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2011 (Annexure P -6), the respondent -defendant filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar and vide order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure P -8), the order dated 16.04.2011 (Annexure P -6) has been set aside. Hence, this revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The lower Appellate Court vide order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure P -8) has set aside the order dated 16.04.2011 (Annexure P -6) after taking into consideration the documents on record and admission made by the petitioner in earlier civil suit No. 572 of 2005, decided on 1.5.2008, pending between the parties. In the said suit, the petitioner has admitted with regard to the construction of house in the year 1967. Thereafter, the said house has been demolished and now the respondent wants to re -construct the same. A relevant portion of the judgment dated 01.05.2008 passed in civil suit no. 572 of 2005 is being re -produced as under: 11. I have gone through the written arguments submitted by both parties. The present suit is for permanent injunction only and ownership of the suit property is not being decided in this suit. Findings in this suit shall have no effect on the rights of any other person except the parties in this suit. It is settled law that admission is the best evidence and admitted facts need not to be proved. Plea plaintiff is that in partition, the suit property came to his share over which he raised construction. The defendant while appearing as DW 1 has admitted in his cross -examination that the plaintiff constructed the house in the year 1967. He constructed boundary wall around his house in the year 1974 -75. His (defendant's) house is located on the northern side of the house of plaintiff. The plaintiff has no share in the house which I have constructed. He (defendant) is not threatening to demolish the wall AB forcibly. He is in possession of entire property which was given to me in partition. The plaintiff has not constructed any boundary wall or raised any construction over the portion allotted to me in partition.
(3.) SINCE there is a specific admission of the petitioner with regard to the construction and now when the respondent wants to renovate/reconstruct his house, the petitioner has no right to interfere with the construction work of the respondent.;