Skip to content


Ganesh Das Bajaj Vs. Municipal Committee, Delhi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 363 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1955P& H112
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 -Order 39, Rule 1; Punjab Municipal Act - Sections 173
AppellantGanesh Das Bajaj
RespondentMunicipal Committee, Delhi
Appellant Advocate K.L. Gosain, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Bishen Narain, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact,..........revision will stand dismissed. the municipal committee will be entitled to take this money but will have to refund it should the case be decide against them.3. i direct that this case be heard by the learned subordinate judge in the month of january 1951. parties should see that their evidence does appear on the date or dates when the case is fixed and the learned judge will not allow any adjournment or postponement of the case if the parties are not diligent in producing their evidence. this case must be finished within three month? from today & if it is not finished, it will be open to any of the parties to move this court for necessary orders. there will be no orders as to casts of this petition. parties have been directed, to appear before the learned judge on 11-12-1050.
Judgment:
ORDER

Kapur, J.

1. This is a rule directed against and order of Mr. Sundar Lal, Sub-Judge, refusing to give an injunction restraining the municipal committee from removing the structure put up by the plaintiff. This order was on appeal affirmed by Mr. Tek Chand Vijh on 18-7-1950.

2. Mr. Gossain has put in an affidavit before me which has not been contradicted by a counter-' affidavit that the municipal committee leased out a certain area of the loot-path to the plaintiff for the purpose of construction of a stall at a rent of Rs. 27- per foot per mensem and that he has put up a construction which has cost him Rs. 5000/- & has put in goods worth Rs. 25,000/-in that construction. Counsel for the municipal committee submits that this is not a lease but a mere licence and that he is under the law entitled to revoke the licence at any time he likes which is a power given to him under Section 173, Punjab Municipal Act. These are matters which have to be decided on evidence and are matters which should be decided in the suit itself and it would not be proper for me to give any findings without any evidence at this stage of interlocutory proceedings.

Besides, in my opinion, in this particular case the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner because if the stall is removed and he subsequently succeeds it may cause him a very great injury and almost an irreparable loss. I, therefore, think that the municipal committee should be restrained from removing the construction put up by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit and I, therefore, make this rule absolute and issue an injunction on the condition that 'the petitioner will deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 650/- within two months and if he does not do so this revision will stand dismissed. The municipal committee will be entitled to take this money but will have to refund it should the case be decide against them.

3. I direct that this case be heard by the learned Subordinate Judge in the month of January 1951. Parties should see that their evidence does appear on the date or dates when the case is fixed and the learned Judge will not allow any adjournment or postponement of the case if the parties are not diligent in producing their evidence. This case must be finished within three month? from today & If it is not finished, It will be open to any of the parties to move this Court for necessary orders. There will be no orders as to casts of this petition. Parties have been directed, to appear before the learned Judge on 11-12-1050.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //