Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.@mdashConcisely, the facts & material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core
controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, initially respondent-plaintiff Baljit Kaur wife of Manmohan
Singh(for brevity ""the plaintiff'') has instituted the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining petitioners-defendants Gurmail Singh and
Baldev Singh sons of Sadhu Singh(for short ""the defendants"") from causing any sort of obstruction in her peaceful enjoyment over the street, in
question. She has also filed an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The defendants
contested the suit, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial
Court dismissed the injunction application of the plaintiff, by way of impugned order dated 29.02.2012 (Annexure P-2).
2. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted and the Appellate Court restrained the defendants from making any sort of
encroachment over the street, in question, which is likely to cause obstruction in using the small gate of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned judgment
dated October 17, 2012 (Annexure P-1).
3. The petitioners-defendants did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter
deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the stay application of the plaintiff, but the Appellate
Court erred in granting stay against the defendants, sans merit.
6. As is evident from the record, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit claiming that the defendants have tried to raise construction of ramp in the street
in front of her house, without any legal right. It has been specifically pleaded that the construction of ramp in the main street would obstruct the gate
causing great inconvenience to her. On the contrary, the defendants have admitted that they are constructing ramp in the street to enter into their
house. It is not a matter of dispute that there is a public street in between the houses of the parties. The defendants intend to construct ramp in the
street, which would naturally obstruct the free ingress to the house of the plaintiff. Otherwise also, the defendants have no legal right to construct
ramp in a public street.
7. Therefore, the Appellate Court has correctly granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff, by means of impugned judgment dated October 17,
2012 (Annexure P-1), the operative part of which is as under:-
In view of my above brief discussion, this court has reached to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the learned lower court is not a
legal order in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the learned lower court is set aside and the defendants-respondents are restrained from making any such encroachment over the street,
which is likely to cause obstruction in using of the small gate by the plaintiff on the western side and not to raise any illegal construction in the street
in dispute forcibly and illegally, till the final decision of this case. However, any observation made herein while disposing of this appeal shall not
effect the case of either parties on merits of the suit.
8. Meaning thereby, the Appellate Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant
connection. Such judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of, superintendence jurisdiction of this Court, as
contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or
legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned judgment(Annexure P-1) deserves to be and
is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits,
lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main suit, as, there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby
dismissed as such. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as
the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition only.