Allowed

Anand Kumar Sharma v. Indrajeet Juneja

Chhattisgarh HC3 Nov 2024MA/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellants sought temporary injunction to protect access to their godown through a 10 feet passage, which was the only way to access it. The lower court dismissed the application. The High Court held that since a similar injunction was previously granted during the trial, it is appropriate to restrain the respondent from obstructing the passage until the first appeal is decided. The appeal was

What did the court decide?

Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondent from constructing or obstructing the 10 feet passage until the first appeal is decided.

Anand Kumar Sharma Vs Indrajeet Juneja — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:42742

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MA No. 50 of 2024

¶6

1 - Anand Kumar Sharma S/o Lt Mange Ram Sharma Aged About 53 Years R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Anup Sharma S/o Lt Mange Ram Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Ashok Sharma S/o Lt Mange Ram Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Smt. Kiran Sharma D/o Lt Mange Ram Sharma Aged About 61 Years R/o Old Power House, Torwa, Naka, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

5 - Smt. Santosh Sharma D/o Lt Mange Ram Sharma Aged About 56 Years R/o Saurapara, Bargarh District - Bargarh (Odisha)

¶11

6 - Smt. Kavita Sharma D/o Lt Mange Ram Sharma Aged About 51 Years R/o Ganesh Talkies, Naila, Janjgir District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Appellants/plaintiffs.

¶13

versus

¶14

2 / 4

¶15

1 - Indrajeet Juneja S/o Lt Kishan Lal Juneja Aged About 52 Years R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant)

¶16

... Respondent.

¶17

For Appellants. : Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶19

04.11.2024

¶20

This Miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by 3^rd District Judge, Raigarh in First appeal No.60/2024 wherein application preferred by appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

¶21

Necessary facts of the case in brief are that plaintiffs/appellants had instituted a civil suit bearing No.22A/17 for declaration of easementary rights in respect of a 10 feet passage situated over plot No.68/24 which is the only way/passage to go to the godown of the appellants which is situated over plot No.68/51 at Raigarh (C.G.). The trial Court i.e. Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class 1, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.22A/2017 vide judgment dated 18.03.24 has reached to a conclusion that the said passage of 10 feet is the only passage to access the godown of the appellants, however, the trial Court further held that plaintiffs/appellants have failed to establish sufficient ground of easementary rights over such passage and dismissed the suit, against which, first appeal was preferred. During the pendency of the civil suit, against rejection of temporary injunction, a Misc. civil appeal

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

No.9/2017 was preferred by the plaintiffs before Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh and vide order dated 25.08.2017 an injunction was granted in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. After filing the first civil appeal, appellant,/plaintiffs have again filed a similar nature of application which was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence this Appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that as during the trial of the civil suit, a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the appellants, therefore, a strong prima facie case lies in their favour. He would further submit that hearing of the appeal would take considerable period of time and if no such protection is extended to the appellants they would suffer irreparable loss as there is no other way/passage to go to the godown of the appellants, therefore he prays to allow instant appeal.

¶25

Per contra, Shri Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent/defendant would support the order impugned. He would alternatively submit that if this Court is inclined to grant any relief in favour of the appellants till adjudication of the appeal, then the protection only with respect to the passage of 10 feet may be extended so as to have proper access to the godown.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the appeal carefully.

¶27

In the case at hand, appellants/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for easementary rights in respect of 10 feet passage which is the only passage/way to go to the godown of the appellants. Even during the trial

¶28

4 / 4

¶29

of the civil suit, the trial Court has rejected the temporary injunction application, against which, a misc. civil appeal was preferred and the same was allowed in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and a temporary protection was extended with regard to the passage of 10 feet. After dismissal of the suit, first appeal was preferred and during pendency of the said appeal, an application for temporary injunction was preferred which was dismissed by the order impugned. As the appellants were protected during the trial to have access to their property and a temporary injunction was granted in respect to 10 feet passage which was situated in front of the appellants’ godown to the nearby road, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to restrain the respondent/defendant from constructing and from obstructing in respect to the said passage of 10 feet which is situated in front of the godown to the nearby road till adjudication of the first appeal.

¶30

It is made clear that this order shall operate only with regard to the passage of 10 feet which is situated in front of the godown to have access to the nearby public road.

¶31

Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶32

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned appellate Court with a direction to conclude the Regular Civil appeal No.60/2024 in an expeditious manner.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Avinash

Anand Kumar Sharma v. Indrajeet Juneja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Sharma v. Indrajeet Juneja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kevra Bai Vs Smt. Bisantin Bai

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs Jagdish Prasad Gupta

Smt. Subhadra @ Sunanda Vs Yogesh Kumar Rathore

Ashok Kumar Ingle (Deleted) through Lrs. Vs K. Raju and Anr.

M/S Meet Medical Agencies Vs M/S Manohar Medical Agencies

Kavita Baghel Vs Prakant Baghel