SBCSA NO.3224/2008 – VIRENDRA SINGH V/S SMT. SARITA AND ORS. . - JUDGMENT DTD.12.8.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3224/2008 Virendra Singh versus Smt. Sarita and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Dilip Moolchandani, for the petitioner. Mr.J.Gehlot,for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12th August, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is filed against the order dt.24.4.2008 whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. The learned trial Court by the impugned order has directed that the defendant shall not restrain the plaintiffs SBCSA NO.3224/2008 – VIRENDRA SINGH V/S SMT. SARITA AND ORS. . - JUDGMENT DTD.12.8.2008 2/3 from using latrine, bathroom and water tank constructed on the disputed strip of 10ft. between two plots being 220 and 221 situated in Indra Colony. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said strip of land was allotted by the Municipal Board in his favour. However, that allotment was later on cancelled by the Divisional Commissioner, which has been challenged by him before this Court by way of a writ petition pending before this Court being S.B. CWP No.2978/2008 in which this Court by order dtd.8.5.2008 had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 20.3.2008 (Annex.12) passed by the Divisional Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the said construction of latrine, bathroom and water tank constructed by him of his land cannot be opened for the plaintiffs. 4. Both the plaintiffs as well as defendants are close relatives being brothers. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that said strip of 10 ft. was not allotted or could not be allotted to be defendants as the said plots are adjacent to each other in the said SBCSA NO.3224/2008 – VIRENDRA SINGH V/S SMT. SARITA AND ORS. . - JUDGMENT DTD.12.8.2008 3/3 colony and there is no strip of land between the two plots. He submitted that the allotment has been rightly cancelled by the Divisional Commissioner and even though the matter is sub judice before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, however, he submits that against the interim order passed by the learned trial Court, there is no reason to interfere with the said impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order as prima facie it appears that between these two plots, there was no strip of land which could be allotted to the petitioner. Since the said premises appears to have been constructed on the common portion between the two close relations, there is no justification for interfering with the impugned order by which the Court has allowed the said portion of construction to be used by the plaintiffs as well. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.74 Ss/-