IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 402 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 10, 2010. Jagdish Chand ..Petitioner. Versus. Rattan Chand and another ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner (s): Mr.Keshav S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2008 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the stay order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sarkaghat was vacated. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the parties are neighbours and own land appurtenant to each other. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction 2 restraining the defendants from raising any construction and also for mandatory injunction to remove the construction raised by them. The main claim of the plaintiff was that in case the construction is permitted to be raised his easementary rights of light, air and passage would be affected by construction. The trial Court passed an order restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the suit land adjoining to the doors and windows of the ground floor of the house of the plaintiff till final disposal of the main suit. This order was vacated by the learned District Judge on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the petitioner filed the present petition. It would be pertinent to mention that initially interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner but on 12.8.2009 the following order was passed: “The interim order dated 3.6.2009 is modified to the extent that the respondent shall carry on with the construction at his risk, cost and consequences subject however to further orders which may be passed by this Court or Civil Court.” I have been informed at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to the aforesaid 3 order, construction has already been raised by the respondents up to three stories. Therefore, there can be no further stay of construction. It has been strenuously contended by Sh.K.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties be directed to maintain status qua as on date. If construction has already been raised and only work of plastering is to be done there is no idea of passing an order of status quo. However, it is made clear that the construction, if any, raised by the respondents is subject to the condition laid down in the order dated 12.8.2009 and the respondents shall abide by the result of the main suit. In case the trial court decides the matter in favour of the plaintiff, no equity shall be claimed by the defendants on the ground that they have raised the construction. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6th September, 2010. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st March, 2011. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs August 10, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV