JOGINDER SINGH Vs. RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit claiming mandatory injunction with a direction to the respondents to remove a wall illegally constructed in the street in front and western side of his house.

(2.) Mr. H.C.Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submits that during the pendency of the suit filed on 1.6.2006, the trial Court, on 7.4.2007, passed an interim order that the construction may go on, but it shall not affect the ingress and egress of the plaintiff. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, the trial Court found that the construction raised is not affecting the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and, therefore, the wall was not illegally constructed, but the claim was declined. The fact remains that the construction is without any authority or sanction and, thus, urges this Court to formulate the substantial questions of law as culled out in the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and appraised the paper book.