Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 16.05.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, and the judgement and decree dated 30.07.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants, claimed themselves, to be the owners, in possession of shop bearing No. 43, situated at Fateh Mandi, Bahadurgarh. It was stated that the portion measuring 10'.6" x 46' and 5'.3" x 25', shown by letters ABCD and CEFG, in red colour, in the site plan, was built on kacha phad (kacha platform). It was further stated that the property, in dispute, was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, and construction of the shop on the kacha phad, was 15/16 years old. It was further stated that since then they had been carrying on their business activities in the said premises. They also obtained electric connection and telephone connection, in the property, in dispute. It was further stated that the defendants/respondents, in collusion with each other, wanted to demolish the shop of the plaintiffs. They served a notice upon them, under Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. On receipt of the notice, the plaintiffs, visited the office of the defendants, and tried to convince them, that no construction in their shop was unauthorized or illegal. The defendants, however, did not pay any heed to the representation, made by the plaintiffs. It was further stated that the construction made in the year 1986, was neither unauthorized, nor over any public place, or public property, including the passage. It was further stated that the notice served upon the plaintiffs, for the demolition of the construction, was illegal. It was further stated that earlier civil suit bearing No. 54 of 1979, titled as ‘Ram Kishan Vs. Administrator, Bahadurgarh Municipality’, was filed, and the same was decreed on 01.12.81, by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Rohtak, and in the said suit, the defendants, were restrained from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, in respect of the construction raised by them, over the disputed site. The Municipal Committee, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed upto this Court. It was further stated that the said judgement, was binding upon the defendants. The defendants, were many a time, asked to withdraw the illegal notice, and refrain from demolishing the construction, in dispute, but to no avail. On their final refusal, left with no other alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed.

3. Defendant/respondent No. 1, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, it took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs, had come to the Court, by concealment of material facts, and, as such, were not entitled to any relief. It was stated that the construction, in question, was made by the plaintiffs, on kacha phad, against the terms and conditions of the allotment and without getting a site plan sanctioned, from the defendants. It was further stated that, therefore, such construction, was illegal, and was liable to be removed, after issuance of the requisite notice under the Municipal Act. It was further stated that no construction, could be made, on the kacha phad, because the same was to be utilized by the general public for parking their tractors, trollies, carts etc. It was further stated that the notice issued, being legal and valid, the defendants, under the Municipal Committee Act, 1973, were entitled to demolish the construction.

4. Defendant No. 2, in separate written statement, also took up the same pleas, as were taken up by defendant No. 1, in its written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:-

(i)