High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 05 RAJ CK 0065

Municipal Board and Another vs Hukam Chand and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 23 May 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahesh Bhagwati, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 6821 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 348 words

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—Challenge in these writ petitions is to the orders dated 18th September, 2008 rendered by District Judge, Tonk, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders dated 25th July, 2008 rendered by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Niwai, dismissing the application filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure.

2.

At the very outset it is pertinent to record that the Hon''ble Apex Court in catena of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution only in the event when the impugned orders are found to be perverse, contrary to material and they result in manifesting injustice. The Hon''ble Apex Court has also held that these powers should not be usually exercised to interfere with the pure findings of fact of the courts below.

3.

Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that since the construction was going-on over the land of the Respondent-Defendant, how the civil rights of the Plaintiff-Petitioner were affected. Even if any construction was being raised by the Respondent-Defendant contrary to law, the Plaintiff-Petitioner was free to take action against him in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned trial court rightly held that no prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss was made out in favour of the Petitioner-Plaintiff. This finding of the learned trial court stood affirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 18.9.2008. There is a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below and in view thereof, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the said finding. The impugned orders rendered by the courts below are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. These orders are neither found to be perverse nor contrary to the material on record, hence the writ petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

4.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions fail and the same being bereft of any merits stand dismissed in limine.