Puneet Gupta JUDGMENT
Puneet Gupta, J.
1. The appellant through the medium of the present appeal seeks setting aside of order dated 09.10.2021 passed by the learned Court of Principal District Judge, Reasi, whereby the prayer sought for by the appellant in the interim application filed in the suit was declined and the defendants were directed to file undertaking in the Court that if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit the defendants shall remove the construction or any development on the suit land at their own cost and further that the defendants shall not alienate the land till disposal of the suit. The order is impugned on the ground that there was no justification for the trial Court to allow the construction over the suit land as the basis on which the defendants claim their right in the suit land is not valid in law, the trial Court having admitted that the suit requires trial and the rights of the parties can be determined only during the trial. The trial Court has failed to visualize the real controversy between the parties. In case the defendants are not restrained from raising construction the appellant will be subject to hardship and irreparable loss.
2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have appeared through learned counsel to contest the appeal. As the relief was sought by the appellant against the aforesaid respondents before the trial court, therefore, the matter was taken up for consideration even in the absence of the respondent No. 4.
3. Mr. P.N. Goja, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff has taken the Court through the various documents on record in support of his argument that the trial Court erred in not allowing the prayer of the appellant in the application and allowing the defendants to raise the construction with the conditions as mentioned in the impugned order. The argument in precise raised on behalf of the appellant is that the documents on which the defendants rely upon do not confer any legal right in the property and as the issues raised in the suit require consideration, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law.
4. Mr. M.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the order of the trial Court is justified. The right on which the plaintiff claims relief in the suit is yet to be decided and there being no dispute that the defendants are in possession of the suit property, therefore, the order whereby the defendants were given permission to raise construction cannot be faulted with.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to MANU/SC/0072/2013 : AIR 2013 SC 1204 which relates to the conditions which are required to be observed to validate the adoption.
6. In MANU/SC/0472/1995 : AIR 1995 SC 2372, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the conditions in which the injunction can be passed.
7. The counsel for the respondent has referred to CIMA Nos. 161 to 166 and 171 of 2001 decided on 01.03.2002 titled Prem Nath and others v. Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Katra, wherein this court did not find favour to grant relief to the plaintiffs in the appeal on the ground that no legal right existed in favour of the plaintiffs on the expiry of license by the efflux of time.
8. In MANU/JK/0035/2004 : 2004 (2) JKJ 99, the court upheld the order of the trial court whereby the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction was dismissed as court directed the defendants to file an undertaking that in case any change is made in the suit property after the order of this court, the same shall be removed by the defendants at their own expense in case the defendants fail in the suit.........