1

CMA 2114/13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

J U D G M E N T

Vikas Tailor Vs. Hemant Kumar Sharma

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2114/2013

Date of Judgment : : :

24.02.2015

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN

Mr. Parag Rastogi, for the appellant.

Mr. Ram Avtar Sharma, for the respondent.

This Civil Misc. Appeal was filed by appellant Vikas Tailor against

the order dated 27.06.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.4

Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 65/2013 relating to

Civil Suit No. 65/2013 titled as Vikas Tailor Vs. Hemant Kumar

Sharma, whereby application for temporary injunction filed by the

appellant /plaintiff was dismissed by that court. The case after

transfer is now said to be pending in the court of Additional District

Judge Sanganer.

It has been argued by the appellant that the impugned order

dated 27.06.2013 is against the material available on record and is

also against the provisions of law. It has also been argued by him

that as per the building construction regulations applicable in Jaipur,

the respondent is neither entitled to raise any construction in the “set

back” area nor entitled for construction of balcony hanging on public

way, nor entitled to change the layout plan and building line of the

2

CMA 2114/13

colony. It has also been argued by the appellant that due to running

of the factory in the residential colony by the appellant, the

respondent cannot get licence to violate the provisions of building

construction regulations having statutory force. It has further been

argued by the appellant that if the respondent is aggrieved by

running of the factory in the plot of the appellant, the respondent

could have also approached the court for shifting of the factory.

Respondent has argued that the appellant had concealed the

facts from the court below when he filed the application for temporary

injunction and when the court below came to know that the appellant

had not come before it with clean hands, the said court rightly

dismissed the prayer of appellant/plaintiff for an injunction.

Respondent has also referred the ruling of Amit Jain & Others Vs.

Rinesh Gupta & Others 2000(1) WLC (Raj) 689 – In this ruling

D.B. Of Raj. High Court has directed to Jaipur Development Authority

to take necessary steps to prevent all commercial activities in

violation of the provisions of J.D.A. Act 1982 in residential area and

J.D.A. was also directed in that case to create a special cell as per

need for this purpose. It was further held in that case that it will be

open to the public also to point out any violations about carrying an

commercial activities in the residential areas against the provisions of

the Act of 1982. In that judgment a Monitoring Committee consisting

of Commissioner J.D.A., Director Town Planning, Secretary J.D.A.,

Senior Town Planner, Collector, Secretary U.D.H. and Municipal

Commissioner was also constituted and the said committee was

directed to get survey of Jaipur City and report about persons

3

CMA 2114/13

carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas against the

provisions of the Act of 1982. J.D.A. was directed to take all

necessary steps to prevent commercial activities in residential area.

In the case in hand in the memo of appeal itself the appellant

admits that his plot is being used for commercial activities and he

also admits that his plot is situated in residential area. In the

circumstances, looking to the conduct of the appellant, relief was

refused by the court below to the appellant and it was held by the

court below that the appellant had not come with clean hands and so

he is not entitled to any equitable relief from the court.

This court also endorses the view of the court below in this

regard. Appellant has relied upon AIR 1985 Delhi 293 Onkar