THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.5831 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.75 of 2010 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, against the respondent for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He filed I.A.No.188 of 2010, under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. He wanted the trial Court to restrain the respondent from opening a door or window, between points ‘C’ and ‘D’, shown in the plaint plan. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 25-06-2010. Thereupon, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.4 of 2010 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the C.M.A. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner and the respondents are neighbours. At some places, they have common wall, and at other places, the walls do not appear to be common. The dispute is about the right of the respondent to fix door or window in the wall, between points ‘C’ and ‘D’, shown in the plaint plan. While the petitioner asserts that any opening in that wall would be into his property, the respondent pleads that there exists an open place after that wall. These, however, are matters, which can be taken into account at the hearing of the suit. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent has already fixed a window at the disputed place. He cannot be required to remove it. At the same time, he cannot be permitted to fix up any doors or windows, afresh. Hence, the C.R.P. is disposed of, directing that the respondent shall not open any fresh windows or doors, between points ‘C’ and ‘D’, shown in the plaint plan, pending disposal of the suit, and at the same time, he shall not required to close any existing openings. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-04-2011. KO