SANTOSH ANAND Vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Click here to view full judgement.
PRATYUSH KUMAR, J. -
(1.)THE present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC by the plaintiffs/appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants') against defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') challenging the validity of the er dated 7.2.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit no.2396 of 2013, whereby application of the appellants for grant of interim injunction has been rejected.
(2.)HEARD Shri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri J.N. Sharma learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
(3.)THE facts involved in the present appeal are as follows: -
The appellants filed a suit for prohibitory injunction against the respondent on the allegations that the property in dispute was purchased by late Bhagat Ram Anand, predecessor in interest of the appellants from late Pyare Lal vide sale -deed dated 12.1.1955. Thereafter, property was developed. Residential and commercial buildings were raised thereat. On 26.11.2013 some persons came to the office of the respondent asked them not to alter or raise any construction situated thereat. Threat was also extended that constructions would be demolished and they would be evicted from the property in dispute, details whereof were given at the foot of the plaint. Along with the plaint an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC supported by an affidavit of Shri Karnal Bhatia, power of attorney holder of the appellants had also been moved, whereby request has been made to restrain the respondent and its agents not to demolish the constructions of the appellants and further not to evict them or interfere with the peaceful use and occupation of the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.
On behalf of respondent before the court below, objection along with supporting affidavit was filed, wherein correctness of the pleadings of the appellants were denied and it was stated further that the property in dispute had been acquired for the respondent on 5.4.1957 under the provisions Land Acquisition Act. The constructions existing on the land in dispute were illegal and liable to be demolished. The appellants were not owners of the property in dispute. They had no right to make any alteration in the property in dispute. The appellants had no prima facie case, balance of convenience was not in their favour, since they were trespassers, they were not likely to suffer any irreparable loss.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.