AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J.—Plaintiff has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.3.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, as well as, order dated 04.05.2010 passed by learned Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby both the Courts below have dismissed the application moved by the Plaintiff - Petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction against the Defendants.
The brief facts of the present case are that Plaintiff has filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the Defendants. It is contended by the Plaintiff that Plaintiff is a school situated at Sector 59, Jharsentli, Faridabad; Plaintiff is using the disputed property for last more than 15 years and claims the right of easement of necessity; Plaintiff has earlier approached the District Town Planner, Faridabad, who has agreed with the Plaintiff; Plaintiff has no other way for egress and ingress from the school. An application also filed by the Plaintiff seeking ad-interim injunction along with the plaint repeating contentions made in the plaint.
Defendant - Respondent No. 1 herein filed written statement and refuted the claim of the Plaintiff and specifically stated therein that Plaintiff has encroached on the land of plot No. 6 and 7 of the answering Defendants which was acquired by the Defendants for Sector 59, Part-I, Industrial Area, Faridabad way back in 1988. It has further been asserted that plot Nos. 6 and 7 have been allotted to the allottees to establish the industries. However, Plaintiff protested and took the law into their own hand. It has further been contended by the Defendants that Plaintiff is having alternate rasta.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, both the Courts below rejected the ad-interim injunction application of the Plaintiff having observed that Plaintiff could not prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Both the Courts below have also recorded the finding that land of plot Nos. 6 and 7 were acquired by the Defendants way back in the year 1988 and Plaintiff has absolutely no title, right over the plot No. 6 and 7. Both the Courts below have also recorded finding that Plaintiff being an encroacher cannot seek injunction against the Defendants. It has further been observed that alternate rasta is available as suggested by the Defendants, hence, there is no question of easement of necessity in favour of the Plaintiff.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that alternate rasta as suggested by the Defendants is not convenient for the students and staff of the School. It has further been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that once it is admitted by the Defendant that Plaintiff has encroached upon the land of plot No. 6 and 7 and is illegally using the plot No. 6 and 7 as rasta, hence unless and until, Plaintiff is dispossessed by adopting due procedure of law, Plaintiff is entitled to use the land of plot No. 6 and 7 as rasta. I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Neither the Plaintiff is claiming possession over the land of plot Nos. 6 and 7 nor Plaintiff is found in possession, hence, there is no question of evicting the Plaintiff by adopting due procedure of law. If Plaintiff is using the land of plot Nos. 6 and 7 illegally for egress and ingress, authorities/Defendants have every right to stop the Plaintiff from using the land of plot Nos. 6 and 7 as rasta. To prove the prima facie case and balance of convenience, Plaintiff has to prove his prima facie title/right over the property in dispute which Plaintiff has failed to do so. Undisputedly, the land of plot No. 6 and 7 was acquired by the HUDA way back in the year 1988 and an alternate rasta is available to the Plaintiff, hence there is no question of irreparable loss being caused to the Plaintiff in the event of refusing the ad interim injunction. On the other hand, if injunction is granted in favour of the Plaintiff, Defendants and allottees of the plot No. 6 and 7 shall suffer irreparable injury and shall be restrained unnecessarily not to use the allotted plots.
If both the Courts have declined to grant injunction in favour of the Plaintiff on the sound principle of law, then this Court should be slow in reversing the judgments while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No interference is called for.
Dismissed.