Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Perusal of the plaint disclose that the suit has been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from obstructing the respondent from carrying out construction in the property described in para 1 Clause (b) and (c) and also from obstructing transportation of construction materials to the suit plot. The plaint also discloses that there was a dispute between the parties in relation to the entire property described in para 1 clause (a), pursuant to which the suit bearing No. 24/87 was filed and the same was settled by way of compromise on 19-3-1987 that the property which was subject matter of the compromise decree was being enjoyed in terms of the said compromise decree and there was no obstruction whatsoever for enjoying the property according to the allotment in the said decree. The pleadings further disclose that the compromise decree was fully executed and subsequent thereto there was fresh cause of action in favour of the respondent on account of the alleged interference or obstruction by the petitioner in the course of construction sought to be carried out by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit plot. Apparently therefore on the face of the pleading nowhere it discloses any complaint regarding execution or discharge or satisfaction of the compromise decree in R.C.S. No. 24/87 but it discloses the suit having been instituted on account of a fresh cause of action having arisen on account of obstruction to the construction of a structure by the respondent in the suit plot. It is pertinent to note that the plaint also discloses the fact that the construction is being carried out in the plot which was allotted under the compromise decree and accordingly was enjoyed by the respondent. Apparently, the case pleaded is to the effect that the construction is being carried out in the plot in enjoyment of the respondent pursuant to allotment thereof under compromise decree which was duly executed, and much after execution of the said document, the petitioner has sought to interfere in such enjoyment giving rise for fresh cause of action. It is also to be noted that there is no averment in the plaint that the said compromise decree was not executed or had remained to be executed.