CW- 1145/09-Dilbagh Singh & Ors.Vs. Shri Kashmiri Lal Jusuja & Ors. Judgment dt.16.2.2009 1/2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1145/2009 Dilbagh Singh & Ors. Vs. Shri Kashmiri Lal Jusuja & Ors. Date of Order : 16th February, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. C.S. Kotwani for the petitioner. --------- 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned first appellate court dated 2.2.2009 whereby the appellate court refused the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. in favour of the plaintiff though the trial court had granted such temporary injunction vide order dated 14.11.2008. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking injunction against the defendant representing one Arodvansh Sanatan Dharm Mandir Trust which is running a school at Sri Ganganagar and on the adjacent plot to the said school had undertaken certain construction which according to the plaintiff was not in accordance with bye laws for building construction and also the same was likely to be used as a marriage place which was bound to cause nuisance in the neighbourhood including the plaintiffs. 3. The learned trial court granted the said injunction, however, the same was vacated by the first appellate court by the impugned order dated 2.2.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of the present writ petition. CW- 1145/09-Dilbagh Singh & Ors.Vs. Shri Kashmiri Lal Jusuja & Ors. Judgment dt.16.2.2009 2/2 4. Having heard learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the first appellate court has not committed any error in vacating the temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. The suit is still pending and the mere apprehension of the plaintiff that the construction in question would not be used as auditorium for cultural activities by the school run by the trust but would be used as a marriage place, appear to be unfounded apprehension at this stage. The case set up by the plaintiff that the construction in question is against the bye laws of the Urban Improvement Trust, is also an issue which is required to be decided by the learned trial court while adjudicating the same as the UIT is also a party defendant before the learned trial court. 5. Looking to the aforesaid facts and discretion of the learned appellate court in the impugned order this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere at this stage in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from raising any construction. How the same would be used in future is a question which is still res integra before the learned trial court. 6. Consequently this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.41 ac babulal/-