Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1108 (RAJ)

Indra Devi v. Aditya Singhvi

2014-05-08

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against order dated 21.3.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking police aid for the purpose of enforcement of undertaking given by the respondent at the ad-interim stage has been rejected. 2. The trial court while deciding the application came to the conclusion that the construction being raised by the respondent was according to the map approved by the Municipal Corporation and the set-backs left were according to the said approved map. The said conclusion was reached by the trial court inter-alia based on the report of the committee constituted on a complaint made by one Ghanshyam Das, who is power of attorney holder of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application was decided by the trial court based on the report of the committee, which report was not supplied to him and he had no opportunity to offer his comments etc. / question the same, though a copy of the report has now been placed on the record of this writ petition by the Municipal Corporation. 4. However, now in view of the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation in para 7 of its reply filed before this Court in relation to the 'front set-back', the petition is being confined to the extent that the observations made by the trial court regarding the side set-backs were unwarranted and the same would prejudice the petitioner's case, and therefore, the observations made and the conclusions arrived at by the trial court while rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC should not come in the way of the petitioner at the subsequent stages of the present litigation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to even maintain the present petition inasmuch as material facts have been suppressed including the fact about pendency of the application filed under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC alleging violation of the ad-interim undertaking given by the respondents. However, it was submitted that the petitioner himself invited the observations of the trial court and it was incumbent on the trial court to make those observations while deciding the application and therefore, now such a grievance cannot be raised. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. However, it was submitted that the petitioner himself invited the observations of the trial court and it was incumbent on the trial court to make those observations while deciding the application and therefore, now such a grievance cannot be raised. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The trial court, while deciding the application filed by the petitioner seeking police aid, after hearing the parties noticed that the petitioner had confined her argument regarding the front set-back only and came to the conclusion that 'prima facie' the construction was not against the approved map and the ad interim order (undertaking) passed by the trial court and consequently dismissed the application. It is true that besides other material, the trial court relied on the report of the enquiry committee which was constituted based on the complaint made by Ghanshyam Das. 8. So far as validity of the impugned order passed by the trial court is concerned, in view of the stand now taken by the petitioner qua the impugned order regarding the front set-back, the order does not call for any interference. 9. So far as apprehension of the petitioner regarding the observations made by the trial court are concerned, it is well settled that any 'observations' made by the trial court while deciding interlocutory application during the pendency of the suit, which are by there very nature not conclusive and only prima facie, does not effect the outcome of the litigation at any subsequent stage. The trial court has clearly observed in its impugned order that it was prima facie of the opinion that the construction was being conducted in terms of the approved map and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner appears to be misplaced. 10. However, though not required, it is clarified that the observations made by the trial court while deciding the application under Section 151 CPC shall not effect the outcome of the litigation at subsequent stage except of course, if similar applications are filed. 11. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application is dismissed.Petition disposed of. *******