AMIT DUTTA Vs. SITA RAM PROJECTS PVT LTD
LAWS(CAL)-2011-7-138
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 19,2011

AMIT DUTTA Appellant
VERSUS
SITA RAM PROJECTS PVT LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revisional application is directed against judgment and order dated 14th June, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia. By the impugned order, Miscellaneous appeal No. 59 of 2010 was allowed on contest and consequently Order No. 22 dated 27th August, 2010 passed by the Trial Court granting the prayer of the plaintiffs/petitioners (hereinafter the plaintiffs) for temporary injunction was set aside. The lower Appellate Court, in the impugned judgment, recorded that the defendants/appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter the defendants) would be at liberty "to make construction over their portion of the land, which is within their exclusive possession and if it is subsequently found that any portion of the plaintiffs land has been encroached by such construction, the defendants shall dismantle at their own cost. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs contends that a seriously disputed question having been raised in the suit, the learned Trial Judge was justified in granting injunction and the Lower Appellate Court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction by interfering with the discretion exercised by him. In support of his submission that the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Judge ought not to have been interfered with by the lower Appellate Court, number of decisions both of the Supreme Court as well as this Court were referred to by him.
(2.)Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the defendants on the other hand contends that the Lower Appellate Court did not commit any illegality in allowing them to raise construction on their portion of the land with the implied observation that no equity shall be created therefore in their favour.
(3.)I have heard learned Advocates for the parties. While it is true that the plaintiffs are entitled to ensure that their land is not encroached by any one including the defendants, at the same time there cannot be any doubt that the defendants are equally entitled in law to raise construction of a boundary wall on their own land for security purpose.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.