IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- . 2834 2009 ( & ) Civil Revision No of O M : 12.8.2009 Date of Decision / . M s Ishar Singh and Sons and another --- . Petitioners Versus Swami Vivek Nand Ji Maharaj . and others --- Respondents : CORAM . HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- : PRESENT . . . , Mr K S Rekhi Advocate . for the petitioners --- , . AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 21.1.2009 , passed by the Additional District Judge Amritsar whereby 25.3.2008 appeal filed by the defendants against the order dated of ( ), , the Civil Judge Junior Division Amritsar granting interim injunction , . in favour of the plaintiff was dismissed - Plaintiff respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from prohibiting him . from setting up a parapet wall on the first floor of the property No 1354/ -12 1357/ -12 . VIII to VIII situated at Amritsar The plaintiff also . moved an application for granting temporary injunction The Civil ( ), , Judge Junior Division Amritsar on consideration of the pleadings , . . of the respective parties i e the application for grant of temporary , injunction reply filed to the said application and the written , statement whereby the defendants raised a counter claim accepted 25.3.2008 the application vide order dated and consequently restrained the defendants from prohibiting the plaintiff from setting . 1354/ -12 up a parapet wall on first floor of the property No VIII to 1357/ -12 VIII fully described in the site plan appended with the plaint and providing a door to enclose the staircase leading to the terrace above the four shops or interfering in the possession of the plaintiff . on the terrace except in due course of law , The Additional District Judge Amritsar upheld the aforesaid order passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal carried by , 21.1.2009, : the defendants vide order dated observing as under “ The learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed on record photo copy of rent note executed by the . defendants Perusal of which shows that defendants . 1 3 Nos to have been inducted as tenants in duly . constructed shops at ground floor only While defendant .4 No has been inducted as tenant in an open shed along . with open space adjoining thereto 92 As per Section of Indian Evidence Act when the terms and conditions have been reduced into writing then oral evidence with regard to those terms is not admissible except in some . exceptions All the rent notes have clearly laid down that / tenants defendants are being given only ground floor of . the property Learned counsel for the defendants argued that staircase and common terrace of all the four tenancy , , premises is in their possession however they have not placed on record any documents to show their . possession Learned counsel for the defendants further argued that the present plaintiff is not entitled to file the . , 25.8.1969, suit However perusal of trust deed dated 24.10.1989 supplementary deed of Trust dated and 25.3.2000, General Power of Attorney dated copy of 14.10.2004 resolution dated shows that plaintiff is duly . authorized to file the present suit Counter claim have failed to establish at this stage a prima facie case of their . possession , Accordingly this court is of the considered view that defendants have no right to restrain the plaintiff from constructing the parapet wall and they have no right to demolish the same and since they are tenants at the . ground floor only having no right to the staircase also , Accordingly a prima facie case is made out in favour of . the plaintiff Balance of convenience also lies in his . favour The plaintiff shall suffer an irreparable loss if the . sought injunction is not granted ” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners though vehemently submitted that both the courts below fell in error in granting temporary injunction as no prima facie case was made out . , , for granting the injunction The counsel however could not point out any illegality or impropriety in the approach adopted by the trial court in granting the temporary injunction which was duly approved by the . Additional District Judge This Court also finds no patent error of - . law or perversity in the impugned orders so as interfere there with , In view of the above there is no merit in the revision and the . same is accordingly dismissed Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of . opinion on the merits of the controversy raised in the suit ( ) AJAY KUMAR MITTAL 12, 2009 August JUDGE * * RKMALIK