MISHRILAL Vs. BASANTLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -defendants are aggrieved by order dated 17.3.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City, whereby the learned Magistrate has partly allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent -plaintiffs. The petitioner -defendants are further aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, and has upheld the order dated 17.3.2011.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner - defendants, wherein they had claimed that their father had constructed a two storey house about fifty -eight years back. On the eastern side of the said house there is a wall which overlooks plot owned by the petitioner - defendants. In the said wall on the ground floor there is a window with a chhajja and on the first floor there are two roshandan with chhajja. Till 2011 the petitioner -defendants were living in a patorposh and did not raise any construction in their plot which lies on the eastern direction of the house owned by the respondent -plaintiffs. But on 9.3.2011 they demolished their patorposh and started construction. In case the construction of the petitioner -defendants were permitted, it would close the window on the ground floor and the two roshandan at the first floor.

(3.) MR . Achintaya Kaushik, the learned cunsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the respondent -plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before the learned Trial Court. Although they claimed that the window and the roshandans are as old as the house itself i.e. fifty - eight years' old, the fact remains that the window and the roshandans were opened on the eastern wall only recently, while the petitioners were away.