1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Smt. Suman & Anr. V/s. Smt. Gokal Devi & Ors. (S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.1428/2010) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) ]of Civil Procedure Code Date of Order :: May 12, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the appellants. The appellants have challenged the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar, whereby while granting the stay order in favour of the plaintiff, the learned Judge has permitted the defendant to complete the laying of the roof. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the interim order passed by the Court is a cryptic one. Since the Court had stayed the construction of any other floor, and of any other 2 construction, the Court should not have made an exception to laying of the roof. It is his further contention that since the construction is being made on the land belonging to the National Highway, the construction itself should have been demolished. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. Whether the construction is on a land belonging to the National Highway or whether the construction is on a land belonging to the defendant, is an issue, which can be decided by the learned trial Court only after recording the evidence. Therefore, at this moment, it cannot be held that the land actually belongs to the National Highway. Since, according to the defendant, part of the construction has already been raised and only the roof needs to be laid, the learned Court was certainly justified in permitting him to lay the roof. However, obviously in case the plaintiffs were to win the suit, the entire construction would have to be necessarily removed. Therefore, merely by the construction of the roof, the plaintiffs cannot be aggrieved. Even if it is the case of the plaintiffs that the construction is obstructing 3 their way to their field, at present moment, the construction cannot be removed. For, at the interim stage, the final relief cannot be granted by the learned trial Court. Moreover, the construction cannot be removed until and unless the ownership of the land is decided by the learned trial Court. Therefore, there is nothing perverse or illegal about the order dated 19.04.2010. In this view of the matter, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-