Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. The plaintiff also filed a contempt petition against the defendants for demolition and re-construction of the property after interim order dated 25th August,2003 was passed. The grievance of the plaintiff regarding demolition of the property and construction by the defendants being contrary to interim order dated 25th August, 2003 has been declined by dismissing his application for the contempt of Court. An appeal is filed by the plaintiff against dismissal of his contempt petition by order dated 27th September, 2004, which is pending adjudication. The plaintiff had also filed an interim application in the contempt petition for sealing of the property in the contempt petition which is, somehow, pending despite dismissal of the contempt petition. The plaintiff filed another application being I.A No.1181 of 2005 for early hearing of interim application in contempt petition and for restraining defendants from carrying out any further construction. On the interim application for early hearing, by order dated 16.2.2005 the defendants have been restrained from carrying any further construction. The relief claimed by the plaintiff in contempt petition, interim application in contempt petition I.A no. 4283/04 and I.A no.1181/05 for yet another interim order and for early hearing of I.A 4283/04 in juxtaposition are as under:

30. If the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the IA 4283 of 2004, interim application in the contempt petition which has been dismissed, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief in another interim application being I.A No. 1181 of 2005 filed for early hearing of said interim application in the Contempt petition and whether the ex-parte interim order dated 16th February, 2005 passed in I.A N.1181/2005 is liable to be confirmed, modified or varied restraining the defendants from raising further construction or any other type of construction in the property.

34. According to learned counsels for the defendants, the plaintiff is seeking an interim relief of restrain against further construction by an interim application in another interim application in contempt petition which sought sealing of property only in the contempt petition. If the plaintiff is not entitled for sealing of property in the contempt petition, whether the plaintiff will be entitled for confirmation of interim order dated 16th February,2005 in the interim application filed for early hearing of interim application in the contempt petition?

50. The plaintiff had categorically prayed in the contempt petition that the further construction in the property be stayed, however, the contempt petition Page 0528was dismissed by order dated 27th September, 2004 The interim injunction order dated 25th August, 2003 is also not liable to be reviewed or varied by another interim application. No order is to be passed on any interlocutory application which is not in aid of final relief in the suit. No relief should also be granted at interlocutory stage which is beyond the scope of the suit in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The interim application seeking sealing of property being I.A 4283 of 2004 in the contempt petition has been dismissed. Therefore interim application being I.A no.1181 of 2005 in the interim application in the contempt petition seeking restrain against further construction is also liable to be dismissed. Consequently the order dated 16th February,2005 restraining the defendant no.7 from carrying out any further construction is vacated and the application of the defendant no.7 being I.A no.1644 of 2005 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed.