CMPMO 193 of 2008. 6.4.2009 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Notices in this petition were ordered to be issued to the respondents on 9.7.2008. The record shows that the respondents were served and on 5.11.2008, Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate filed Memo of Appearance on their behalf. He prayed for time for filing Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondents, but despite opportunities having been granted on 25.11.2008, 26.12.2008, 9.3.2009 and 24.3.2009, Power of Attorney has not been filed. The respondents are proceeded ex parte. This petition has been preferred by the defendants herein against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal is still pending final disposal with the learned District Judge. His grievance is that both these orders are against law and have not been passed in consonance with the principles governing injunction and appointment of local commissioner. It is undisputed that the trial Court has passed a decree for mandatory -2- injunction in favour of the plaintiff – respondents for demolition of construction raised on 16.63 square meters on khasra No. 2048/1. The plaintiffs have averred that despite the stay order, the defendants were raising further construction. It is but obvious that in case the defendants – petitioners succeed, no demolition can be carried out. Conversely, if the plaintiffs succeed, any construction raised by the petitioner – defendants herein shall in no way vest any equity / right in them and compliance of the decree would necessarily include demolition of the construction so raised/ being raised contrary to the decree. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that any construction made by the petitioners on the suit land which is subject matter of the appeal regarding which mandatory injunction has been passed, shall abide by the final result in the appeal. Mere raising of the construction shall not vest any equity / right in the petitioners herein. It will be open to the petitioner herein to urge on the legality of the order passed in the application under Order 39 Rule 7 along with other grounds in the appeal. This petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. April 6, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.