IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5357 of 2004. Ganga Ram @ Gangu son of Shri Dalu Ram & Others VERSUS Jagannath son of Shri Mangu Ram & Another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5489 of 2004. Ganga Ram @ Gangu son of Shri Dalu Ram & Others VERSUS Jagannath son of Shri Mangu Ram & Another Date Of Order ::: 18/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Keshav Agrawal, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya, advocate, for Mr. N.K. Maloo, Counsel for the respondents By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the writ petitions, arise out of one suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The plaintiff/respondent Jagannath instituted a suit for permanent injunction as well as injunction in mandatory form in respect of disputed land and constructions raised by the defendant/petitioners, after filing of the suit. The trial Court vide its order dated 03.07.2002 allowed the application of temporary and mandatory injunction and restrained the defendants from raising any constructions towards common wall of both the parties and further that the wall, which has been constructed over the common wall be removed within a period of seven-days. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court vide its judgment dated 18.07.2003 dismissed the appeal. The order of the trial Court was not complied with by the defendants, therefore, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151, C.P.C. for the compliance of the order dated 03.07.2002, which has been affirmed by the appellate Court also. The defendant/ petitioners filed their reply dated 30.09.2003, wherein they specifically mentioned that they have complied with the order dated 03.07.2002 fully and nothing remains to be complied with. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the statement of the defendant given in the reply is false, as he has not removed the wall constructed by him, after filing of the suit, therefore, the trial Court appointed a Commissioner to give its report. The Commissioner submitted its report on 08.10.2003, wherein he mentioned that the disputed constructed wall has not been removed by the defendants. The trial Court vide its order dated 26.07.2004 passed an order that in case the defendants have not complied with the order dated 03.07.2002, then they should do it within a period of three-days, failing which the Assistant Nazir will go at the spot, along with the Police aids and will see that the disputed wall is demolished. Being aggrieved with the above order dated 26.07.2004, the petitioner has preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5357 of 2004 before this Court on 03.08.2004. It is relevant to mention here that the order dated 18.07.2003 passed by the Appellate Court was not challenged by the defendants by way of revision petition or writ petition before this Court and the same has now been challenged by way of writ petition bearing No.5489 of 2004 and the said writ petition has also been filed on 03.08.2004 before this Court, along with the Writ Petition No.5357 of 2004, meaning thereby the writ petition No.5489 of 2004, which is directed against the order dated 18.07.2003 has been filed after a delay of more than one year. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioners contended that the suit in between both the parties is pending in the trial Court, therefore, it will be just and proper in the interest of justice to maintain the order of status-quo in respect of disputed wall, which has been constructed, after filing of the suit and before grant of temporary injunction by the trial Court, whereas, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondents contended that the order granting injunction was affirmed by the Appellate Court and the said order was not challenged by the defendants for a period of one- year. The defendants did not comply with the injunction order, therefore, the plaintiff filed an application for execution of the order, wherein the defendants gave reply dated 30.09.2003 mentioning therein that they have complied with the order fully, whereas as per the Commissioner Report, the wall had not been removed by them, as directed by the learned trial Court, therefore, they gave even false statement before the trial Court in this regard and it is a settled law that a person, who has not come with the clean hands before the Court, then he is not entitled for any discretion and the writ petition on behalf of such person should not be entertained. He also contended that his 'nalas' etc., have been closed by this disputed wall, therefore, its removal at this stage is necessary. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by the trial Court dated 03.07.2002, 18.07.2003 and 26.07.2004 respectively. It is an admitted fact that the orders dated 03.07.2002 and 18.07.2003 were not challenged by the petitioner till passing of the order dated 26.07.2004 by trial Court for a period of one-year. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed an application for execution of the order dated 03.07.2002 before the trial Court and the defendants filed their reply to the said application filed by the plaintiffs mentioning therein that they have already complied with the order passed by the trial Court fully and nothing remains to be complied with. This fact clearly shows that defendants admitted before the trial Court that they have not only stopped the new constructions, but they have also removed the wall, which was constructed by them after filing of the suit. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, both have recorded a finding of fact while deciding an application for injunction and appeal that the defendants raised constructions of the disputed wall after filing of the suit. The said finding is a finding of fact and there is a concurrent finding of fact in this regard by both the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff/ respondents, which cannot be interfered with by this Court, while sitting in extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 26.07.2004 is nothing, except a consequential order passed by the trial Court for the compliance of its earlier order dated 03.07.2002, which was affirmed by the appellate Court. When this Court has not interfered with in the orders dated 03.07.2002 and 18.07.2003 passed by both the Courts below in Writ Petition No.5489/2004, then no interference can be made in the order dated 26.07.2004 passed by the trial Court, which has been challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition no.5357/2004. In view of above, I do not find any merit in any of the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order may be placed in the connected case. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/