SBCWP No.7833/2007 Smt. Manju Singhvi Vs. Nilesh Jain & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.7833/2007 Smt. Manju Singhvi Vs. Nilesh Jain & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 7.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.DR Bhandari, for the petitioner. Dr. Sachin Acharaya, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs, who are one of the occupants owner of the premises in a complex filed the suit for injunction apprehending that in common utility places including the place reserved for car parking may be used and utilized by the defendants for other purposes and their amenities may be disturbed, therefore, the plainitffs sought relief that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute and he be directed to maintain the parking space in the basement with appropriate passage for parking. The trial court granted the injunction and appellate court also upheld the order of the trial court with some more directions. The grievance of the petitioner is that the SBCWP No.7833/2007 Smt. Manju Singhvi Vs. Nilesh Jain & Ors. 2 trial court granted injunction beyond the relief claimed by the plaintiff and conditions have been put upon the defendant-petitioner, which cannot be sustained. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the respondents by the petitioner shown by the learned counsel. The apprehension of the petitioner that the court belows have granted injunction for the entire area of the basement and allotted it for use of plaintiff's car only appears to be absolutely wrong because of the reason that the trial court in its order impugned in para no.9 at page 9 clearly mentioned that applicant is entitled to use the portion of the basement for car parking, which means that they are entitled to the said right as given to them in the sale deed. Looking to the condition no.19 in the sale deed it is apparent that prima facie plaintiffs are entitled to keep their car in the basement where the seller is bound to give facility of car parking. In view of the above reason, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that entire basement has been given to the plaintiff for car parking has no foundation. SBCWP No.7833/2007 Smt. Manju Singhvi Vs. Nilesh Jain & Ors. 3 In view of the above reason, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-