-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2572/2004. Jai Kumar. VERSUS Addl.District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Others. 08.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.J.P.Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Agarwal ] Mr.K.N.Gupta ] for the respondents. Mr.Hari Bareth, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned appellate court allowing the appeal filed by the defendant against the order passed by the learned trial court dated 14.08.1998 by which the application submitted by the plaintiff-petitioner for the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. had been allowed and the defendant, respondent herein, had been restrained not to carry out any structural changes in the property in dispute. Admittedly, since the filing of the suit in the year 1998, the defendant has been bound by the restraint order issued by the learned trial court and after the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed by judgment dated 13.04.2004, by the order of this court dated 28.04.2004 staying the operation of the order dated -2- 13.04.2004. The effect of the aforesaid orders has been that for the past eleven years, the defendant has not been permitted to carry out any structural changes in the property in dispute. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant in the garb of carrying out structural changes of reducing the level of the floor of the shop is wanting to construct a basement which as per the plaintiff is not permissible. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent is that the defendant does not want to carry out any construction of the basement and only wants to reduce the level of the floor so as to come in the level of the road as the road is about 2 feet below the level of the floor of the shop. Admittedly, the defendant has not obtained any permission from the Municipal Corporation for carrying out the aforesaid construction/alteration in the property in dispute. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to alter the status quo as it is existing since 1998. However, permission is granted to the defendant to seek permission from the Municipal Corporation for carrying out the structural changes and in case such permission is granted by the Municipal Corporation in accordance with law, the defendant would be free to raise the construction as per the aforesaid permission which would be subject to the decision of the suit. -3- Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of. It is directed that the learned trial court with the co-operation of the parties and their counsels shall proceed to decide the suit expeditiously as the suit is more than ten years old. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.