TOON LAL Vs. SONOO LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this case was the plaintiff in an action in which he claimed an injunction to restrain the defendant (the respondent in this appeal) against erecting buildings in such a way as to obstruct the plaintiff's light and air. It appears that he succeeded in the trial Court and the defendant went on appeal. Whilst the appeal was pending it would appear that the defendant erected certain constructions which are now claimed to have been in disobedience of the injunction granted by the trial Court. The appeal was compromised and a decree passed accordingly.

(2.) Subsequently the appellant made an application which he described as an application in execution--an entire misnomer in my judgment. Although his rights are laid down by Order 21 and although a part of his claim related to a form of execution, certainly the more important part of his application could be more properly described as an application for attachment. However the nomenclature perhaps does not affect the rights of the parties.

(3.) Now what appears to have happened was this that the defendant had erected on the wall, which according to the judgment and decree was not to be extended for more than five feet in height, certain posts upon which a chat was built. With regard to that the learned Judge in the Court below is clear. His statement is this: So, as the decree stands, whatever construction is made after the judgment of the lower Court is against the terms of the decree. Hence the applicant appellant has disobeyed the decree.