The main legal point established in the judgment is that the well settled parameters for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC must be met, and in this case, there was no violation of building plan and Municipal bye laws by the defendants, leading to the permission for them to raise construction in the approved manner.

ORDER :

Plaintiff is aggrieved by the dismissal of an application moved by her under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed by learned Trial Court on 1.10.2018 dismissing the application has been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge on 31.10.2019.

Parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the learned trial court.

2. Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and alternatively for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that she is owner in possession of land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 56/175, khasra No. 1685/203, measuring 297 Sq. Meters situated in mauza Thodo Solan, Tehsil and District Solan. Jamabandi for the year 2011-12 was enclosed alongwith the plaint. It was stated that over this khasra number, the plaintiff had constructed a residential building, possession of which she is enjoying alongwith the easementary right for the last more than 50 years.

Plaintiff also pleaded that defendant No. 1 was owner of adjoining land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 546/819, khasra No. 2013, measuring 48 square meters situated in mauza Thodo, Tehsil and District Solan. Plaintiff further submitted that on the land owned by defendant No. 1 there existed one old structure of the defendant, which was demolished by the defendant. Grievance of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 1 after demolishing of his old structure was trying to construct a new structure without leaving any set back in violation of Municipal bye laws and also without getting the map sanctioned from the Municipal Council, Solan-defendant No. 3. Plaintiff complained that raising of such construction would block plaintiff’s easementary right of light and air. Alongwith plaint, application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for grant of ad-interim injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2.

2(i) Defendants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement admitted that plaintiff owned and possessed a building adjoining to their owned land. Their defence was that the construction being raised by them was in accordance with the map duly approved by the Muncipal Council, Solan and that the said construction was being raised at the place where their old structure was existed. The defendants in their written statement also highlighted the fact that plaintiff had made a complaint to the Muncipal Council, Solan about raising of alleged illegal construction by the defendants on the spot. The matter was got investigated by Municipal Council, Solan from its Engineer. It was found that the construction was being raised by defendants No. 1 and 2 as per the sanctioned map and in accordance with the applicable rules and bye laws. It was the stand of the defendants that they were raising the construction on the land owned by them. There was no question of violation of any alleged easementary right of light and air of the plaintiff as the old structure of defendants already existed on the land owned by them. The new construction was being raised by them at the same place where the old structure existed.

2(iii) Defendant No. 3-Municipal Council, Solan in its written statement pleaded that the construction was being raised by defendants No. 1 and 2 in accordance with the sanctioned building plan. It was also stated that after receiving the complaint from the plaintiff, concerned Junior Engineer was deputed to inspect the spot . He submitted his inquiry report that the construction was being carried out by defendants No.1 and 2 at the place where their old structure was located. It was also reported that the construction was being carried out in accordance with the sanctioned building plan. The report of the Junior Engineer alongwith the site plan was enclosed alongwith the written statement.

2(iv) After appreciating the pleadings and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court vide order dated 1.10.2018 dismissed the application. This order has been affirmed by the