1 7 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2626/2008. Jagdish Joshi Vs. A.D.J. No.1, Bhilwara & Ors. Date of Order :: 23rd April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Usman Ghani, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: Prayer for temporary injunction as made by the petitioner-plaintiff to compel the defendants to leave 10' wide set-back while raising construction on the adjoining piece of land having been rejected by the learned Trial Court after considering the record of the case and particularly after finding that the plaintiff-petitioner himself has left a set-back only of 4' 3” width on the northern side of construction raised by him on the part of the land in dispute; and the appeal taken by the plaintiff-petitioner having been dismissed by the Appellate Court again after appreciation of the material available on record and particularly with reference to the conduct of the plaintiff-petitioner, by way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to question the orders so passed by the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff pressed into service the submissions that after filing of the suit and service of notice on the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, a so-called gift is said to have been made in favour of the defendant No.3 of a 2 part of the land in dispute and such gift was sham and bogus and aimed only at depriving the plaintiff of his legal rights. Learned counsel further submitted that from the Commissioner's Report as produced on record, it appears that the defendant intends to raise construction on the entire plot without leaving any set-back at all. The submissions aforesaid do not make out any case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court against the order passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal against the discretionary order passed by the learned Trial Court refusing the prayer for temporary injunction after thorough appreciation of the material available on record. The fundamental aspects of the matter remain that the learned Courts have found that the petitioner has alleged having purchased 30' x 90' portion of land out of the total area of the plot of 60' x 90' size; and while not leaving 10' wide set- back as sought to be asserted for the purpose of defendants, the plaintiff raised the construction while leaving a set-back only of 4' 3”. The learned Subordinate Courts have found the plaintiff not equitable in his conduct and then, have found no reason to restrain the defendants from raising construction in accordance with the approved plan. There does not appear any jurisdictional error in the orders aforesaid so as to call interference. 3 The submission that the defendants were raising construction without leaving any set-back does not appear correct with reference to the Commissioner's Report (Annex. P/1) wherefrom, prima facie, it appears that before starting construction, some portion of land is left open by the defendants towards southern side, i.e., the side adjoining the plaintiff's plot. The submission that the alleged partition or alleged gift were the transactions brought about only after filing of the suit does not make out any case in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. The claim of the petitioner essentially has been that the construction towards the northern side of his plot ought to be raised after leaving 10' set-back. The learned subordinate Courts have not found the petitioner entitled for any such relief by way of temporary injunction, particularly after noticing that the plaintiff himself has left the set-back only of 4' 3”. The impugned orders appear to have been made on relevant principles for dealing with the prayer for temporary injunction; and cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI ), J. Mohan/