The court found that the defendant's construction plan did not violate the building rules and that the plaintiff's claim did not establish irreparable injury or balance of convenience in his favor.

1. Balbir Singh Wasu, Advocate is the owner of plot No. 1115, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. He constructed house on this plot some 30 years ago. Adjoining plot No. 1129 was purchased by defendant Parbandhak Committee, Gurdwara Sahib, Patsahi Dasween, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh at public auction held by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh on 19-11-97. Defendant was allotted plot Nos. 1137 and 1138 in Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Defendant constructed residential house on Plots Nos. 1137 and 1138 in violation of the building plan of Sector 8-C. Plaintiff filed CWP No. 17884 of 1997 that the service quarters cannot be built on residential plot measuring 1 kanal. He prayed for the setting aside of the auction of residential plot No. 1120 in favour of the defendant. On 5-5-98, this Court passed order that the defendant shall make further construction on plot No. 1120 in accordance with the plan which the Chandigarh Administration may sanction as per the prevailing rules. It was alleged that the defendant was threatening to demolish the common wall between Plots Nos. 1119 and 1120 without his consent and was coercing him to consent for demolishing the portion of the common wall. Defendant was also threatening to construct servant quarters,Dharamshala, Sarai, Langar and Janj Ghar in violation of the site plan by demolishing the common wall. Through civil suit No. 190 of 1998 for permanent injunction, he prayed for restraint on the defendant restraining it from using the common wall without his consent and without first getting a comprehensive building plan for the entire residential building to be built on plot No. 1120 sanctioned by the competent authority and from demolishing the portion of the common wall between residential plot No. 1119 (built by him) and residential plot No. 1120 which was purchased by the defendant in open auction from U. T. Chandigarh without his consent. Along with the plaint, he moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. CPC for the grant of ad interim injunction.. Vide order dated 29-5-98, ex parte injunction was granted whereby the defendant was restrained from demolishing the common wall, using the side wall without the consent of the plaintiff. Defendant was further restraining from raising any further construction on plot No. 1120 until the site plan was approved by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. Vide order dated 29-5-98, Civil Judge [Junior Division), Chandigarh gave ex parte injunction to the plaintiff restraining the defendant from demolishing the common wall and using the side wall without his consent. Defendant was further restrained from raising any construction on plot No.1120 till the site plan was approved by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh.

2. Vide order dated 15-6-98, the trial Court confirmed the ad interim temporary injunction granted by the Court and the defendant was restrained from raising any construction on plot No. 1120 except according to the plan sanctioned by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. After the passing of the order by the High Court on 5-5-98, in CWP No. 17784 of 1997, the High Court passed the following interim order :-

"In view of this the only appropriate direction which deserves to be issued by the Court is that Gurudwara Sahib shall submit a revised plan for construction of the building on the plot in question i.e. plot No. 1120 and construction shall be raised by Gurdwara Sahib and its representatives only after sanctionof the revised building plan as per the prevailing rules."

3. As per the order passed by the High Court on 25-11-98, defendant was required to submit a fresh building plan for approval of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. Defendant submitted the fresh revised building plan to the Estate Officer, Chandigarh for approval. On 10-6-99, Chandigarh Administration sanctioned the building plan. According to Gurdwara Sahib, Gurdwara Sahib became eligible to raise construction in accordance with the building plan submitted by them and got sanctioned by them on 10-6-99