Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case involves a dispute over a piece of open land known as "chowki," which the plaintiff claims to have a right to use for light and air, and the defendant is constructing on, despite municipal restrictions (!) (!) .

2. The plaintiff filed for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from making unauthorized constructions on this open land, asserting that their easement rights are being affected and that the construction violates municipal building bye laws (!) (!) .

3. The initial temporary injunction was granted by the trial court, restraining the defendant from construction activities, but this was later set aside by the appellate court, leading the plaintiff to file a revision petition (!) (!) (!) .

4. The revision court observed that the plaintiff need not establish full title to the land to obtain a temporary injunction; rather, it is sufficient to demonstrate that preserving the current condition of the disputed land is necessary until the rights are finally adjudicated (!) (!) .

5. The court emphasized that allowing the defendant to proceed with construction could irreparably harm the plaintiff's rights to light and air, which are protected as easementary rights (!) (!) .

6. The importance of adhering to municipal building bye laws was highlighted, noting that unauthorized construction against these laws can adversely affect the environment and the rights of residents in the locality (!) (!) .

7. The court recognized that residents have a right to seek judicial relief to prevent unauthorized or illegal construction that violates municipal regulations, supporting the plaintiff’s claim for injunction (!) (!) .

8. The court distinguished this case from other cases based on specific circumstances, emphasizing that the defendant's right to raise construction is limited by municipal bye laws