VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA,J. - (1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 24th November, 2016, granting application for Temporary Injunction; the defendant/appellant has instituted the present misc. appeal.
(2.) Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the plaintiff/non-appellant instituted suit proceedings stating that he is residing in the residential house which he got as a co-sharer of the ancestral property. On the vacant land on the southern side of the house of the plaintiff/non-appellant, the defendant/appellant started construction and carried out an excavation up to the depth of 25 feet with the purpose of construction of a basement adjacent to the house of the plaintiff/non-appellant, which resulted into a serious damage to the foundation of the house of the plaintiff/non-appellant and the walls above the foundation developed cracks leading to imminent danger to the life and property of the plaintiff/non-appellant. The trial Court, taking note of the facts pleaded and the materials available on record as well as upon hearing the counsel for the parties, made the impugned order dated 24th November, 2016, restraining the defendant/appellant, from proceedings further with the construction and refill the foundation dugout along with the foundation wall of the plaintiff/non-appellant, without any delay.
(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the appeal, urged that the impugned order dated 24th November, 2016, is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court as the suit for permanent injunction has been instituted on a valuation of Rs. 400/-, and therefore, is not maintainable in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chirawa, for the same ought to have been instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, as contemplated under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2014.;