Peddi Ashok Kumar & Ors vs Peddi Sudarshan Rao
- SCC(2009) 14 SCC 194
- Neutral2009 INSC 224
- SCR[2009] 3 SCR 336
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an interim order directing status quo has been made in litigation concerning construction, the burden lies upon the party seeking modification of that order to place material evidence before the court demonstrating either that the requisite sanction or approval for the proposed construction exists, or that the structure is capable of withstanding the additional construction. Mere assertion of personal inconvenience or hardship is insufficient ground to justify modification of a status quo order in the absence of such material evidence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court permitting construction of the second floor, by modification of the interim order dated 3.11.2006, by which status quo was directed to be maintained. The High Court felt that there was no material to show that the building will not withstand the second floor and that there was inconvenience on the part of the applicant before the High Court to accommodate his sons. The High Court in the aforesaid premises modified the interim order dated 3.11.2006 and permitted construction of the second floor.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the correctness of the impugned order. There was no material before the High Court to show that any plan had been submitted or there was any sanction to construct the second floor.
Specific stand was taken that the building would not withstand raising of the second floor. The High Court felt that it was for the appellant before the High Court to show that the building withstand the second floor. No material was placed by the applicant before the High Court to show that either there was any sanction for construction of the second floor or that the factual situation was that construction of the second floor would not cause damage to the building. Merely because there was some purported inconvenience indicated by the applicant that could not have been ground to permit construction of the second floor.
4. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 20.10.2008 and direct that status quo as was earlier directed by the order dated 3.11.2006 shall continue to be operative till disposal of the matter by the High Court.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free