Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement. The defendants contended that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is frivolous and not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. Further the defendants contended that the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Section 482 (1) of KMC Act and the defendants have denied para-7 and 8 as false and contended that the plaintiff has constructed building by deviating the sanction plan. Further the defendants have issued notice u/S 308 of KMC Act, after receiving O.S. No.27051/2012 complaints with regard to deviation in construction of the building over the suit schedule property, calling upon the plaintiff to produce the sanction plan and the defendants have inspected the property with reference to sanction plan and found that the plaintiff has constructed the building deviating the sanction plan and without leaving set backs in the ground floor in the front to the extent of 100% on behind side to the extent of 100% on left and right sides to an extent of 100%. It is noticed that the plaintiff has deviated the sanction plan while construction and same was recorded by the defendants and provisional order u/S 321 (1) and (2) of KMC Act was passed on 30.10.2012 and directed the plaintiff to review the deviation and further issued show cause as to why the provisional order passed by the defendants shall not be confirmed. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable before this court as the plaintiff has filed this suit after initiation of action u/S O.S. No.27051/2012 321 of KMC Act by issuing notice u/S 308 of KMC Act. With this, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

21. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute between the parties that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiff has constructed O.S. No.27051/2012 building over the suit schedule property deviating the sanction plan. With this observation and reasons assigned and relying on the decisions referred supra, I answer issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative and Partly in the Negative.