Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

From the evidence available on record it is clear that trial Court has misread the statement of prosecution witness PW1-Shri K.K.Avasthi merely by the reason that he failed to specifically deny the suggestion made in his cross-examination that respondent has left open front set back of seven feet, apart from balcony of three feet. Although, at the time of inspection on 30.3.2009 made by the Enforcement Officer, the actual area left open by the respondent was not very much clear and visible because at that time the construction work was undergoing but thereafter the entire picture became clear when construction was completed and inspection was made on 14.9.2011 by Commissioner appointed by the Civil Court i.e. two and half years after inspection was made on 30.3.2009. As (26 of 28) [CRLA-193/2014] per report dated 13.3.2016 also front set back of 7'6" only was found to be left open and construction has been made upto common boundary wall between Plot Nos.8 and 9 i.e. covering entire area of 36 feet from North to South.