Find a Lawyer

Revision Application No. 311 of 1986, decided on 26th October, 1986.

---S.54--Grant of injunction, application for--Petitioner claiming easement/ necessity rights of sewerage lines and other necessities enjoyed by him, sought injunction against respondent in respect of plot in dispute on which neither any construction was raised by respondent so far nor was intended by him to be raised--As injunction could be claimed by petitioner only when either his rights were actually adversely affected or were intended to be affected by respondent by raising some sort of construction, application of petitioner for seeking injunction against respondent, held, was premature in circumstances.

This revision is not competent as I do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the lower Court, who has refused tea issue injunction in favour of the applicant. The applicant had claimed easement/ necessity rights in respect of sewerage lines and other necessities enjoyed by the applicant in respect of the disputed plot. The injunction could have been claimed only when such rights were actually intended to be affected by the respondent by raising some sort of construction. But a construction has not been raised or intended to be raised so far by the respondent and, therefore, the injunction application in respect of the necessity rights was premature. The applicant should have waited till such time that his rights were actually adversely, affected or seriously intended to affected and then alone it could be said that the petitioner has a subsisting right to l injunction. In the present circumstances, injunction prayer was premature and, therefore, it was rightly rejected. This revision is, therefore, dismissed.

H.B.T./B-13/K Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.