GAURAV Vs. VIKRAM KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gaurav and another filed a suit for perpetual injunction (prohibitory and mandatory) seeking to restrain and prohibit respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from excavating earth and removing soil of the ground floor of the shop in dispute as fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. The plaintiffs also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking ad interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from excavating the earth and from constructing the basement without getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee.

(2.) The learned trial Court on a consideration of the matter and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the construction of the basement is not going to cause any harm to the plaintiff especially when much part of the basement has already been constructed and if stay is granted at this stage, the defendants would suffer irreparable loss. It also came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendants. It consequently dismissed the application vide order dated 11.8.1993.

(3.) The plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court dated 11.8.1993 preferred an appeal which was assigned to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties also came to the conclusion that major portion of the building had already been constructed and completed by the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction prayed for. In the ultimate analysis he dismissed the appeal vide order dated 4.12.1993. Hence this revision petition at the instance of the plaintiffs.