SBCMA No.1300/2008 Bhikham Chand @ Bhikam Chand Vs. Jeevanmal -{ 1 }- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1300/2008 Bhikham Chand @ Bhikam Chand vs Jeevanmal DATE OF ORDER : - 10.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the appellnat. Mr.AA Bhansali, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The trial court while deciding the injunction application of the respondent permitted appellant to complete the floor and do plastering and allowed the appellant to put window, doors shutters etc over the construction, which he has already raised. The appellant has been prevented from raising new construction and also restrained from demolishing the existing structure. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the trial of the suit more time will be consumed and it will take years together. It is submitted that the court can permit the construction after taking undertaking from the appellant that the appellant will not claim any equity SBCMA No.1300/2008 Bhikham Chand @ Bhikam Chand Vs. Jeevanmal -{ 2 }- because of the construction and also the appellant will remove the construction. It is submitted that it will result into hardship to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this court (by me) delivered in Gomti Devi & Anr. Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr reported in 2006(2) DNJ (Raj.) 1078. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case. The equitable relief can be granted to the appellant seeking relief on the basis of the facts of the case and on proving prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. While granting inunction condition can be imposed by the court is settled law. What relief is appropriate is dependent upon the facts of each case. It is true that in civil cases time is needed for deciding by the trial court, therefore, the provision has been made for passing interim order so as to protect the rights of the parties. In this case looking to the facts mentioned in the impugned order, I am of the view that the trial court's order does not suffer from any error of fact or lawn or it can be said to be perverse or capricious. The facts of this case do not warrant for SBCMA No.1300/2008 Bhikham Chand @ Bhikam Chand Vs. Jeevanmal -{ 3 }- permitting the appellant to raise new construction when he has been allowed to enjoy the property substantially for which he has already raised construction. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-