PRADEEP KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. VIPIN KUMAR DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court granted 'temporary injunction against the defendant -appellant as defendant appellant is co -sharer. The defendant -appellant is purchaser of 13/16 share. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have 3/16 share. There is nothing wrong in grant of temporary injunction when the appellant is trying to remove construction and reconstruct a portion of house. The defendant -appellant has 13/16 shares, which is major share while plaintiff has only 3/16. They will suffer by injunction order under circumstances of the case and, therefore, it is fit case in which the court below will try to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

(2.) LEARNED counsel argued that the plaintiffs are trying to demolish certain construction. We are not going into the merit of this argument as defendant did not approach the court below in this respect. In case he has grievance of any kind then he can raise it before below even now by moving a proper application. Subject to aforesaid observation this appeal is dismissed summarily.