Mohan Singh Kashyap Vs. Sohan Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the instant case, an application was filed under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the civil procedure code, 1908, seeking interim order from the court to construct the boundary wall around the disputed land - in this view, proper direction was given by the local commissioner for constructing the boundary wall - sat pal, j.(1) this is an application filed by the defendants under order 39 rules 1 and 2 read within section 151 of the code of civil procedure and in this application the plaintiff has sought the permission of this court to raise the boundary wall on the suit property bearing no. 33/41,punjabi bagh (west), new delhi for the proper safety and security of theproperty. it has also been prayed in the application that the plaintiff be restrained by means of an ad interim injunction from causing any obstruction in erection of boundary walls facing front road and side road of the saidproperty.(2) notice of this application was given to the plaintiff who has filed the reply in opposition to the application. the plaintiff has submitted that it was the right and prerogative of the plaintiff either to construct the wall or not as the plaintiff was in occupation of the land in question.(3) mr. sindhwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/applicant, submitted that the suit property was in occupation of the defendant and the erection of the boundary wall on the plot was necessary for the proper safety to the suit property. in this connection the learned counsel drew my attention to the orders dated 11/01/1989 and 18thsep. , passed in this case, in terms of which the parties were ordered to maintain status quo regarding possession as on 8/12/1987 with regard to the plot in question. mr. goel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, however, submitted that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit property and the plaintiff was willing to erect the boundary wall at his expense.(4) from the order dated 11/01/1989, it is clear that since the question of possession was disputed by the parties, this court directed status quo as on 8/12/1989 regarding possession. i am, thereforee, of the opinon that it will be in the interest of justice that the boundary wall is erected through an independent person.(5) during the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the parties agreed that for this purpose a local commissioner may be appointed and the parties will share equally the expenses for erection of the boundary wall and fee of the local commissioner.(6) in view of the above, i appoint mr. j.c. verma, advocate, chamber no. 525, patiala house court, new delhi, as a local commissioner,under whose directions the boundary wall will be erected. the local commissioner shall be paid rs. 4,000.00 as fee which shall be equally shared (1/2by the plaintiff and 1/2 by the defendants). similarly the expenses for erecting the walls will be paid by the parties equally i.e. one-half by the plaintiff and one-half by the defendants. the parties will be at liberty to suggest the name of any contractor/mason for erecting the boundary wall to the local commissioner who will engage a person whose quotation will be the minimum. with this order the application stands disposed of.(7) a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the parties to be handed over to mr. j.c. verma, the local commissioner who shall report within four weeks.petition allowed.