The appellate court can remand a case for fresh adjudication if the trial court fails to consider all relevant facts and documents, ensuring complete justice.

JUDGMENT

Gurbir Singh, J.

Prayer in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-19) passed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which, the order dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure P-14) passed by the trial Court has been set aside and the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC for restraining the petitioner-defendant from constructing a basement near the property of the plaintiff, has been remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication and till the decision of that application, the petitioner has been restrained from raising any construction whatsoever in the suit property.

2. The brief facts, as culled out from the petition, are that respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter called, "plaintiff") filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter called, "defendant") from constructing a basement in the property of the defendant situated at Queens Road, opposite Railway Station, Amritsar. The defendant is constructing a Hotel under the name and style of M/s Richie Hotels Limited. The plaintiff claims himself to be the owner of Grand Hotel and if basement is dug out near the wall of property of the plaintiff, his apprehension is that the whole structure would become weak and can even fall and will cause loss to human life. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC was also filed for restraining the defendant from raising any construction of basement within the area of 5 feet from the property of the plaintiff.

2.1. The defendant appeared in pursuance of notice. Written statement to the suit was filed and replication thereto was also filed by plaintiff.

2.2. The stand taken by the defendant in his written statement is that construction is being undertaken by him in his own property without there being any impact or affect on the property of the plaintiff. The construction is as per sanctioned site plan and necessary certificate for constructing a basement from the Mining Department has also been obtained. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of injunction. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not the owner of adjoining property i.e. Grand Hotel as per the revenue record. Said alleged building of the plaintiff, being old one, is in dilapidated and inhabitable condition and in this respect, the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, respondent No.2 herein, had sent various notices to undertake necessary repairs, as any mishap can happen, but no steps were taken by him.

2.3. Vide order dated 14.12.2021, the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court by observing that the defendant has every right to construct basement in his own property for which he had obtained necessary permissions. With regard to property of the plaintiff, it has been observed that a notice was issued by Municipal Corporation, Amritsar after noticing the dilapidated condition of the adjoining building and the plaintiff was directed to demolish the same within 15 days of issuance of notice in order to avoid any injury or loss of life to the habitants of the locality.

2.4. Said order was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar.

2.5. Vide order dated 03.11.2023, the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal and the order dated 14.12.2021 was set aside. The extract of order is as under:-

"14. So, in view of my aforesaid detailed discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 14.12.2021 is not legally sustainable as the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the facts and documents pleaded in the replication filed by the appellant/plaintiff and as such is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal in hand is allowed and the impugned order dated