AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.D. Gyani, J.—This revision petition u/s 115 CPC arises out of an order dated 16.12.93 passed by the Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Guwahati in Misc Case No. 12/90 and Misc Case No. 6/90.
Few basic facts may now be noted. Plaintiff Petitioner filed a suit for declaration of his title coupled with permanent injunction. He also prayed for the following relief; apart from declaration:
(i) a decree for declaration that the Defendant that the Defendant has no right to construct the 1st floor of the building just on the eastern boundary of the Plaintiffs holding No. 50 ward No. 27 of GMC without municipal permission and without leaving a boundary margin of 5 ft;
ii) a decree for demolition of the portion of the 1st floor constructed by the Defendant illegally and without leaving boundary margin and the katcha latrine;
iii) a decree for permanent injunction restraining Defendant from constructing the 1st floor of the building situated in the eastern side of the Plaintiffs'' holding No. 50, ward No. 27 of G.M.C. without leaving side margin of 5ft, and without permission form the G.M.C. and in such manner that the water from the roof falls on the boundary of the Plaintiff and Defendant or in the compound of the Plaintiff;
iv) direction to the Defendant No. 2 to demolish the unauthorised and illegal construction raised by the Defendant on the eastern boundary of the Plaintiffs holding No. 50 ward No. 27.
The subject matter of the suit is a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 1 Lechas covered by Dag No. 63 of K.P. Patta No. 1006, Mouza Ulubari, Sahar Sarania Part II.
While it is true that the Defendant even in a suit can seek interim relief of injunction in the instant case, the Respondent applied for injunction restraining from cutting earth from the land of the adjacent boundary without any specific description of the land and the trial court assimilating the two cause of action passed the impugned order. As already noted above, even the Defendant Respondent was entitled interim relief of the suit filed by the Plaintiff Petitioner. It was not open to hi to explain the scope of the subject matter of the suit which is not covered by the Plaintiff''s suit. For any such relief, if the Defendant Respondent so desired, he should have filed and independent suit which has not been done.
For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 16.12.93 as passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati in Misc Case No. 12/90 and 6/90 is liable to be set aside, it is accordingly set aside.
The petition is allowed with no order as to cost.