The present petition of the appellant was under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a Single bench judge HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, in the matter RAVINDER KUMAR AHUJA V. MST. SALIDA AHMAD AND ORS dealt with an issue mentioned above.
In this case, the 1st application was been dismissed holding that the relief sought in the application is beyond the subject matter FAO 249/2021 of the suit.
So, The learned counsel of the appellant submits that the trial court has erred in holding that the relief claimed is beyond the subject matter of the suit, in as much as, in prayer (ii), an injunction has been sought against the respondents, inter-alia, from holding any function, unlawful assembly or doing any illegal act on any part of the property.
He also submits that the appellant owns the entire property and has been continuously using the same from the very inception till date. He also mentioned that proxy litigations were also filed by the respondents unsuccessfully before several forums.
Meanwhile, an Issue notice was issued, Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1, 4, 5, 7 & 8. And also Learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1, 4, 5, 7 & 8 submitted that they are proposing to hold the marriage function of respondent no. 4.
Learned counsel, under instruction, submitted that given the controversy raised and without prejudice to their rights and contentions, they shall not hold the proposed marriage function on the subject property. So given the above, an appeal is disposed of binding the respondents to their statements that no marriage function shall be held in the subject premises as proposed.
It was pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the wall adjoining the servant quarters was been broken by the respondents to bring in their guests from that side. This was also disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that the wall has fallen on account of natural circumstances.
The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “Without getting into the said controversy, the appellant is permitted to have the said wall repaired”.
Judgment Reviewed By: Mandira BS