https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465496 The HC held that an interlocutory direction compelling demolition/removal of a wall could not stand where, on the plaint, amended plaint, and map, the disputed wall was not shown to obstruct the pleaded blue/red passages and the prayer clause did not seek removal of that construction; the direction was beyond the suit's subject-matter and contrary to an earlier interlocutory finding that the land was not a passage, so the demolition direction was set aside. The HC further held that refusal to recall/restore an order by relying on the applicant's past conduct was legally erroneous because the enquiry must be confined to sufficiency of cause for default on the relevant date; the recall-related orders were quashed. Exercising Article 227, the HC intervened to prevent gross failure of justice and remitted the matter to proceed on the limited pleaded passage dispute, subject to costs/directions. en-us Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 16:51:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465496 The HC held that an interlocutory direction compelling demolition/removal of a wall could not stand where, on the plaint, amended plaint, and map, the disputed wall was not shown to obstruct the pleaded blue/red passages and the prayer clause did not seek removal of that construction; the direction was beyond the suit's subject-matter and contrary to an earlier interlocutory finding that the land was not a passage, so the demolition direction was set aside. The HC further held that refusal to recall/restore an order by relying on the applicant's past conduct was legally erroneous because the enquiry must be confined to sufficiency of cause for default on the relevant date; the recall-related orders were quashed. Exercising Article 227, the HC intervened to prevent gross failure of justice and remitted the matter to proceed on the limited pleaded passage dispute, subject to costs/directions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465496