Skip to content


R. Varadhappan Vs. V. Palanivel and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1937 of 1981
Judge
Reported in(1981)4SCC244
AppellantR. Varadhappan
RespondentV. Palanivel and ors.
Excerpt:
- [ d.a. desai and; r.b. misra, jj.] - easement — right of way — temporary injunction granted to claimant — suit directed to be disposed of by trial court — meanwhile plaintiff-claimant permitted at own cost to repair the pathway and make it usable -- we have heard learned counsel dr chitale for the appellant and learned counsel dr natesan for the respondents. the issue relates to interim injunction, pending the disposal of the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff. the appellant is having a factory and the pathway in dispute provides access to the factory as claimed by the appellant. dr chitale informed the court that there are pot holes in the pathway and these cause serious inconvenience in the plying of trucks.d.a. desai and; r.b. misra, jj.1. we have heard learned counsel dr chitale for the appellant and learned counsel dr natesan for the respondents.2. the matter does not admit of a long argument or a delayed disposal. therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on either side we decided to dispose of the matter after hearing both sides.3. the issue relates to interim injunction, pending the disposal of the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff.4. the appellant is having a factory and the pathway in dispute provides access to the factory as claimed by the appellant. he has to take trucks to the factory over the pathway.5. in order to have an effective adjudication of the matter, we direct that the learned judge before whom the suit is pending shall hear the matter.....
Judgment:

D.A. Desai and; R.B. Misra, JJ.

1. We have heard learned counsel Dr Chitale for the appellant and learned counsel Dr Natesan for the respondents.

2. The matter does not admit of a long argument or a delayed disposal. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on either side we decided to dispose of the matter after hearing both sides.

3. The issue relates to interim injunction, pending the disposal of the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

4. The appellant is having a factory and the pathway in dispute provides access to the factory as claimed by the appellant. He has to take trucks to the factory over the pathway.

5. In order to have an effective adjudication of the matter, we direct that the learned Judge before whom the suit is pending shall hear the matter day to day and dispose it of within three months from the receipt of this order. During this period, the injunction granted by the appellate court permitting the appellant to ply trucks over the disputed pathway to the factory shall continue to subsist.

6. Dr Chitale informed the Court that there are pot holes in the pathway and these cause serious inconvenience in the plying of trucks. We direct that on a request by the appellant who is the plaintiff before the trial court, the learned Judge should forthwith appoint a Commissioner who should visit the pathway and permit the appellant to fill in pot holes just to make the surface even for the trucks to ply. The expenses incurred by the plaintiff-appellant for this purpose shall not be claimed by him whatever be the outcome of the suit and shall always be borne by him.

7. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the first appellate court which is in consonance with this judgment.


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