Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 325 (RAJ)

LRs of Deen Dayal v. LRs of Ram Chandra

2010-02-09

VINEET KOTHARI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.1999 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff-decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 11 C.P.C. in execution of decree dated 2.3.1996 in Civil Suit No.160/1995 (34/95) in favour of the plaintiff. 2. By this decree, the learned trial court had directed that the defendants will not open any window or ventilators on the Southern side of his house which opens towards adjacent North side of the plaintiffs' house. 3. In the present application under Order 21, Rule 11 C.P.C., the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant-judgment-debtor have opened such windows and ventilators on the southern side of his wall so as to violate the decree. 4. The learned counsel for the decree-holder Mr. N.M Lodha with the help of statement of Mr. Deen Dayal and his son Mr Suresh and certain photographs produced before the learned trial court tried to submit that the judgment-debtor had violated the decree of the Court and, therefore, the learned court below has erred in rejecting the application under Order 21, Rule 11 C.P.C 5. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Nagori submitted that in the statement of Mr. Suresh, he had admitted that the construction in question was done in the year 1994 which was prior to filing of suit itself in 1995 and the photographs produced by the decree-holder also show that the North and South side the wall of both the parties were adjacent and closed with each other and there was no construction on the said Southern side of the defendants' house so as to violate the decree. The windows in question opened on the front side of his house which do not violate the decree at all and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the said application. 6. Having heard learned counsels and after perusal of the record and statements of the parties, this Court is satisfied that the learned court below has not erred in rejecting the application under Order 21, Rule 11 C.P.C. of the plaintiff-decree-holder. 7. The construction in question appears to have been done prior to filing of the suit and the photographs produced before the learned court below also do not indicate any apparent violation of the decree. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order. 8. 7. The construction in question appears to have been done prior to filing of the suit and the photographs produced before the learned court below also do not indicate any apparent violation of the decree. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order. 8. Consequently, this revision petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******