Smt. Shakuntla Rani vs Shri Ram Kanwar

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This civil revision has been directed against the order of the learned additional District Judge, Rohtak, who by allowing the appeal filed by the defendant, dismissed the application for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from raising the wall in dispute.

Originally both the shops were owned by one Rizak Ram. Now plaintiff and defendant are owners of one shop each. The roof of both the shops rests on a wall which is claimed by the plaintiff to be exclusively owned by her. Apprehending that defendant may not demolish1''and reconstruct the wall, plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction restraining defendant from doing so. Alongwith the suit, an application for ad-interim injunction was also filed which was contested by the defendant. Trial Court decided the application in favour of the plaintiff and granted ad-interim injunction. On appeal filed by the defendant, the Additional District Judge, after finding that the plaintiff has no prima facie case in her favour, vacated the injunction order. This order is being impugned by the plaintiff by way of this civil revision.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the sale deed dated 25,8,1971 the wall is shown to be exclusively owned by her and defendant is estopped from contending to the contrary because father of the defendant was one of the attesting witnesses to the sale deed.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this civil revision. The matter as to whether well in dispute is exclusively owned by the plaintiff or not is yet to be decided by the trial Court. Admittedly, the roof of both the shops rests on this common wall. Therefore, prima facie it seems that the wall between the two shops is common. The lower appellate Court has also given a finding that defendant has put a beam. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how by reconstructing the wall and putting a beam, the property of the petition is going to be damaged. I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned first appellate Court that the plaintiff being one of the co- sharer is equally interested in the maintenance of the wall.

Resultantly, the civil revision is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Considering that the suit was filed in the year 1988, the trial Court is directed to expedite the decision of the suit.