1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2840/2007 Trilok Nath & Anr. vs The Addl. District Judge NO.1, Udaipur & Ors. Date of order : 3.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sandeep Shah, for the petitioners. Dr. Sachin Acharaya ] Mr. T Gupta ] Mr. JP Bhardwat ], for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved against the grant of injunction against raising of the construction in a suit filed by the respondents on the ground that petitioners are raising construction in no construction zone. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners are residing in the property in dispute since last more than 100 years and their case was considered thoroughly by the local body in detail and, thereafter, the permission was granted to the petitioner to raise construction. The petitioners' property is not falling in any category of the properties on which construction cannot be raised. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ 2 Petition No.3845/2001 vide order dated 10th July, 2002 set aside the orders dated 4.8.2000 and 13.11.2000 however with the direction to the petitioner in that case, that petitioner company will assure that the lake system is not polluted and that it follow the norms laid down by the Pollution Board. According to learned counsel for the petitioners in the present case, the suit has been filed by the persons who have inimical relation with the petitioners and they have nothing to do with the property in question. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the two courts below. The two courts below have considered the orders passed by this Court in writ petitions referred to in the orders and I have also perused the Annex.5 and 6 placed on record by the petitioners and found that it is not a fit case for interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of grant of injunction where the petitioners were directed to maintain the status quo only. Since it is a matter relating to the construction, therefore, it will be appropriate that the trial court may be directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months only. The trial court shall see that the 3 matter may not be lingered on by any of the parties on unnecessary and flimsy grounds. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioners is dismissed with above direction to the trial court. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-